Richardson v Richardson [2010] GUSC 14; 2010 Guam 14 (29 September 2010)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

DARIUS A. RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

JEAN L. RICHARDSON,
Defendant-Appellee.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA08-015
Superior Court Case No.: DM0361-01

OPINION

Filed: September 29, 2010
Cite as: 2010 Guam 14

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on May 19, 2009
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant: Lewis Littlepage, Esq. P.O. Box 2794 Wailuku, HI 96973

Appearing for Defendant-Appellee: Jean L. Richardson, Pro Se P.O. Box 88944 Honolulu, HI 96830

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

TORRES, J.:

[1] Plaintiff Appellant Darius A. Richardson ("Darius") appeals from a Superior Court order requiring Darius to pay monthly child support in the amount of $3,458.00 retroactive to August 1, 2008, and denying his motion for reconsideration of an earlier order setting the amount owed for arrears for both child support and spousal support. The order also imputed income to Defendant–Appellee Jean L. Richardson ("Jean") and obligated her to pay $472.00 in monthly child support.

[2] The trial court abused its discretion in assigning the entire costs of private school tuition to Darius and erred as a matter of law in granting an upward deviation from the Guam Child Support Guidelines without a prior determination that the upward deviation was based on a factor not already accounted for by the Guam Child Support Guidelines or that the children's circumstances were not within the average presumptions of the Guam Child Support Guidelines. Moreover, while we affirm the trial court's decision not to impute income to Jean based on an earning capacity as a full-time paralegal, the trial court abused its discretion in imputing income to Jean based on a part-time salary as a legal secretary without evidence regarding whether she has the necessary qualifications for a legal secretary, evidence of prevailing employment opportunities for a legal secretary in her geographic location, and a finding that there was reasonable cause for her to work part time. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3]