PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Guam

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Guam >> 2013 >> [2013] GUSC 17

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Babuta v Babauta [2013] GUSC 17; 2013 Guam 17 (20 August 2013)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM


ANTONETTE L. BABAUTA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,


v.


EVANGELIS J. BABAUTA,

Defendant-Appellant.


OPINION

Filed: August 20, 2013


Cite as: 2013 Guam 17


Supreme Court Case No.: CVA12-028
Superior Court Case No.: DM0498-06


Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on February 20, 2013
Hagåtña, Guam


Appearing for Defendant-Appellant:
Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, Esq.
Law Office of Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, P.C.
250 Route 4
Nanbo Guåhan Bldg. Ste. 204
Hagåtña, GU 96910
Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee:
Thomas J. Fisher, Esq.
Fisher & Assocs.
167 E. Marine Corps Dr. Ste. 101
Hagåtña, GU 96910

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


MARAMAN, J.:


[1] This case is on its second appeal after remand to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this court’s opinion in Babauta v. Babauta, 2011 Guam 15 (“Babauta I”). Defendant-Appellant Evangelis J. Babauta (“Evangelis”) argues that the trial court erred in denying him reimbursement for his post-separation payments from his separate funds toward a line of credit that was taken out during his marriage to Plaintiff-Appellee Antonette L. Babauta (“Antonette”), and for insurance proceeds intended for repairs to the marital residence. Evangelis also appeals the trial court’s denial of his request for credit for the fair market rental value of the marital residence during the time in which Antonette enjoyed its exclusive possession by court order but no longer lived there. Finally, Evangelis contends that the trial court’s finding that Antonette did not commit waste of the marital residence is not supported by substantial evidence.


[2] For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.


I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


[3] The facts underlying the original trial court proceedings can be found in Babauta I; thus, only those facts which are relevant to the current appeal will be recited.


[4]


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/gu/cases/GUSC/2013/17.html