McGhee v McGhee [2008] GUSC 17; 2008 Guam 17 (24 October 2008)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

TROY MCGHEE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CLAUDETTE MCGHEE,
Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No. CVA05-019
Superior Court Case No. CV0179-00

OPINION

Filed: October 24, 2008
Cite as: 2008 Guam 17

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Submitted on the briefs June 1, 2007
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: William D. Pesch, Esq. Agana Legal Clinic 173 Aspinall Ave., Suite 203 Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Claudette McGhee, Pro Se Post Office Box 3268 Hagåtña, GU 96932

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; RICHARD H. BENSON, Justice Pro Tempore

TORRES, C.J.:

[1] Defendant-Appellant Claudette McGhee, appearing pro se, appeals the Superior Court’s judgment that defined Troy McGhee’s community property interest in Claudette’s Government of Guam retirement benefits and ordered her to reimburse Troy’s community property interest in monthly installments (“Partition Judgment”). Additionally, Claudette appeals two judgments issued by the Superior Court that voided her transfers of real property to her children (collectively, “Voiding Judgments”) shortly before the entry of the Superior Court’s partition order. We dismiss Claudette’s appeal because Claudette failed to order a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court, and the absence of a transcript precludes meaningful review of the trial court’s findings.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] Years after the dissolution of his marriage to Claudette, Troy filed a complaint to partition Claudette’s Government of Guam retirement benefits which were not previously divided. The Partition Judgment, awarding Troy a fifty percent share of the retirement benefits, was issued on August 18, 2004, and entered into the docket on August 24, 2004. Claudette attempts to appeal this judgment.

[3] Two weeks before the entry of the Partition Judgment on the docket, Claudette executed two deeds transferring her ownership of two lots to her children. Troy moved to set aside the transfers arguing that Claudette intentionally attempted to defraud him and frustrate his ability to collect money due to him. The lower court agreed with Troy and issued the two separate Voiding Judgments on November 22, 2005, voiding both deeds.

[4]