Banes v Banes [2012] GUSC 11; 2012 Guam 11 (15 May 2012)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

DAVID G. BANES,
Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM,
Respondent,

OXANA GALKINA BANES,
Real-Party-in-Interest
Supreme Court Case No. WRP12-002
Superior Court Case No. DM0377-11

OPINION

Cite as: 2012 Guam 11

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted May 15,2012
Hagatiia, Guam

Appearing for Petitioner: Daniel J. Berman, Esq. Berman O'Connor & Mann Ste. 503, Bank of Guam Bldg. 111 Chalan Santo Papa Hagatiia, GU 96910

Appearing for Real Party-in-Interest: Curtis C. Vande veld, Esq. The Vandeveld Law Offices, P.C. 123 Heman Cortes Ave., Second FIr Hagatiia, GU 96910

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

CARBULLIDO, C.l.:

[1] Oxana G. Banes ("Oxana") filed a Complaint for divorce and the nullification of a prenuptial agreement. David G. Banes ("David"), a resident of Saipan, filed his Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Superior Court of Guam issued a decision denying David's Motion, holding that it had personal jurisdiction over David. David then filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in this court, arguing that the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over him and sought to prevent the trial court from proceeding to hear the divorce case in Guam. Verified Pet. Writ Prohibition ("Pet.") (Feb. 8, 2012). We hold that the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over David and order the writ of prohibition to issue to the Superior Court, prohibiting it from proceeding with the case.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[1]

[2] David and Oxana met in Saipan in 1999. Before their marriage, the two negotiated a Prenuptial Agreement ("Agreement") in Saipan, and each party was represented by independent counsel. This Agreement included a provision governing choice of law, stating that the Agreement was made in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ("CNMI") and that it "shall be construed under and in accordance with" CNMI laws. Record on Appeal ("RA"), tab 3, Ex. A ¶ 26 (Prenuptial Agreement, Jan. 31,2003). Additionally, this provision states: "[T]his Prenuptial Agreement shall in no way be affected by or modified because of a change in domicile of either party." Id.