Lamb v Hoffman [2008] GUSC 2; 2008 Guam 02 (18 February 2008)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

CAROLYN JANE LAMB,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

BENJAMIN RALPH HOFFMAN,
Defendant-Appellant

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA05-015
Superior Court Case No.: CS0589-03

OPINION

Filed: February 18, 2008
Cite as: 2008 Guam 2

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on May 3, 2006
Mangilao, Guam

For Defendant-Appellant: Thomas M. Tarpley, Jr., Esq. Tarpley & Moroni, LLP Bank of Hawaii Bldg., Ste. 402 134 W. Soledad Ave. Hagåtña, GU 96910

For Plaintiff-Appellee: G. Patrick Civille, Esq. Civille & Tang, PLLC 330 Hernan Cortez Ave., Ste. 200 Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice,[1] FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice,[2] and ROBERT J. TORRES, Associate Justice.[3]

TORRES, J.:

[1] Defendant-Appellant Benjamin Ralph Hoffman appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court that ratified the findings and recommendations of the Child Support Referee. We affirm in part and remand in part for further proceedings.

I.

[2] Defendant-Appellant Benjamin Ralph Hoffman (“Benjamin”)[4] and Plaintiff-Appellee Carolyn Jane Lamb (“Carolyn”) were married in 1982. They have one daughter, Emma, born in 1989. In 1998, Carolyn filed a divorce action in Pictou County in the Province of Nova Scotia, Canada. A trial was held on February 28 and 29, 2000 and March 1, 2000, in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, which functions as a trial court under the Canadian justice system. On March 1, 2000, at the conclusion of the proceedings, the judge issued an oral order that was subsequently memorialized in a written decision released April 6, 2000. In the decision, Justice Scanlan conservatively estimated Benjamin’s income from his work as a radiologist to be C$300,000 per year and ordered him to pay Carolyn C$2,391 per month in child support and C$10,000 per month in spousal support. The spousal support was to continue “until such time as [Carolyn] receives her share of the division of matrimonial property.” Record on Appeal (“RA”), Tab 1, p. 24 (Decision, Apr. 6, 2000).

[3]