Babauta v Babauta [2011] GUSC 13; 2011 Guam 15 (28 September 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

ANTONETTE L. BABAUTA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

EVANGELIS J. BABAUTA,
Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Filed: September 28, 2011

Cite as: 2011 Guam 15

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA10-008
Superior Court Case No.: DM0498-06

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on December 6, 2010
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, Esq. Law Office of Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, P.C. 888 N. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 215 Tamuning, GU 96913

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: Thomas J. Fisher, Esq. Fisher & Assocs. 167 E. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 101 Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice.[1]

MARAMAN, J.:

[1] Defendant-Appellant Evangelis J. Babauta (“Evangelis”) appeals from an Interlocutory Decree of Divorce from Plaintiff-Appellee Antonette L. Babauta (“Antonette”). Evangelis argues that the trial court’s division of the marital property was in error because the court failed to give him due credit for his separate property contributions used to purchase and maintain the marital residence. Evangelis also argues that the trial court erred when it disclosed in its Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the details of an expunged criminal case against Evangelis. Finally, Evangelis contends the trial court abused its discretion in finding him at fault for extreme cruelty in light of the evidence that Evangelis suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.

[2] For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3] Evangelis and Antonette were married in Guam on December 18, 1998. They were in a relationship with each other for seven years prior to the marriage.

[4] The parties separated on or about June 11, 2006. There are no children of the marriage, although both parties have children from prior marriages.

[5] Both parties sought a divorce based on extreme cruelty and grievous mental suffering. Antonette sued on the additional ground of bodily harm, while Evangelis sued on the additional ground of adultery.

[6]