Malabanan v Manabanan [2013] GUSC 30; 2013 Guam 30 (30 December 2013)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

MARIA CECILIA TIU MALABANAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

BEN B. MALABANAN, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Filed: December 30, 2013

Cite as: 2013 Guam 30

Supreme Court Case No. CVA12-034
Superior Court Case No. DM0709-11

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on July 17, 2013
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Catherine Bejerana Camacho, Esq. Law Office of Catherine Bejerana Camacho 267 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 302 Tamuning, GU 96913

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: Jeffrey A. Cook, Esq. Law Offices of Cunliffe & Cook, APC 210 Archbishop F.C. Flores St., Ste. 200 Hagåtña, GU 96910

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

CARBULLIDO, C.J.:

[1] Defendant-Appellant Ben B. Malabanan, Jr. appeals from the trial court's decision and order increasing the amount of temporary spousal support payments he must make to Plaintiff-Appellee Maria Cecilia Tiu Malabanan pending their divorce. Ben argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it modified the temporary spousal support amount to which the parties stipulated, because Maria failed to demonstrate a material change of circumstances and because the court did not assess pertinent factors such as Maria's employability, Ben's child support payments, and Maria's expenses when it augmented the amount. In opposition, Maria argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because there was evidence before the court of a material change of circumstances – namely, that she was unemployable due to her severe depression – and because the trial court considered the pertinent factors that Ben alleges were not assessed. By reply, Ben submits that Maria bears the burden to prove a material change of circumstances as the moving party requesting modification, and that she failed to mention her medical condition in her moving papers. Moreover, Ben submits that Maria's medical condition had been present for years and that her income did not change as a result of her medical condition.

[2]