Isaac v Isaac [2014] GUSC 21 (20 August 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

LIWAYWAY C. ISAAC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BRIAN E. ISAAC,
Defendant-Appellee.

OPINION

Filed: August 20, 2014

Cite as: 2014 Guam 21

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA13-021
Superior Court Case No.: DM0050-09

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on February 20, 2014
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant: Phillip Torres, Esq. Torres Law Group 130 Aspinall Ave., Ste. 2A Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Defendant-Appellee: Daniel S. Somerfleck, Esq. Somerfleck & Associates, PLLC Nelson Bldg. 866 Rte. 7, Ste. 102 Maina, GU 96932

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

MARAMAN, J.:

[1] Plaintiff-Appellant Liwayway C. Isaac appeals the trial court's judgment granting Defendant-Appellee Brian E. Isaac divorce on the ground of adultery. Based on its finding of adultery, the trial court disproportionately assigned the community property and denied Liwayway spousal support.

[2] We reverse and remand the case with instructions that the trial court grant the parties divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences and equally divide the community property and debt. The trial court shall re-determine the issue of spousal support.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[3] Liwayway and Brian were married in 1998. The couple has three children. The youngest child was born in November 2005. In October 2008, Brian and Liwayway separated.

[4] In January 2009, Liwayway filed for divorce, claiming irreconcilable differences. Liwayway asked the trial court to divide the community property and debts equally. In addition, Liwayway requested child support and spousal support. Finally, Liwayway asked for sole custody of the children, claiming Brian was not the biological father of the children and requesting that the court order Brian to take a paternity test.

[5] Brian counterclaimed, seeking divorce based on irreconcilable differences and extreme cruelty. Brian argued that he was entitled to parental rights. Neither party sought divorce on the ground of adultery.

[6] At trial, both parties acknowledged that they moved multiple times during the marriage because of Brian's job in the Navy. Brian testified that in June 2003, Liwayway moved to Washington State "to set up a household, and get the kids settled" while Brian was in training. Transcript ("Tr.") at 42 (Bench Trial, Aug. 28, 2012). Brian stated that when he moved to Washington in April 2004, he found Liwayway "living with a guy in the house that she had set up." Id. at 43. Brian testified that after he arrived, Liwayway and her boyfriend moved out of the house and lived in a different residence. Brian stated that he reconciled with Liwayway, and that she moved back in with him in the summer of 2005.

[7] The trial court found that the community property included a Honda Civic; the household furnishings, appliances, personal effects, and jewelry of the parties; and Brian's retirement benefits accruing from July 1998 through October 2008. The trial court found that the community debt was $39,670.00. The court found that no reconciliation was possible between the parties.

[8] The court denied Brian divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty but granted him divorce on the ground of adultery. The court based its finding of adultery on its determination that Liwayway "admit[ted] adultery [by contending] that [Brian] may not be the biological father of the children," and on Brian's testimony that Liwayway was "living with another man" in Washington. Record on Appeal ("RA"), tab 54 at 3 (Finds. Fact & Concl. L., May 7, 2013). Based on its finding of adultery, the trial court granted "an unequal award of community property to [Brian]." Id. at 4-5. The trial court awarded Liwayway the Honda Civic. The trial court awarded Brian all the household goods and furnishings, and his retirement benefits. The trial court "apportion[ed] the responsibility of the community debts in the amounts of one-third to [Liwayway] and two-thirds to Brian." Id. at 7. In addition, the trial court awarded joint legal and physical custody over the children. The trial court found that Brian was the father of the children and no biological testing was necessary. Finally, the trial court denied Liwayway spousal support, but awarded her $760.00 per month in child support. The amount of the child support was determined earlier by the child support referee. Subsequently, the trial court entered its interlocutory and final judgments of divorce, affirming its findings of facts and conclusions of law.

[9] Liwayway timely filed a notice of appeal.

II. JURISDICTION
[10] This court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 113-125 (2014)) and 7 GCA §§ 3107 and 3108(a) (2005).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
[11] The trial court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Babauta v. Babauta, 2013 Guam 17 ¶ 17; Camacho v. Camacho, 1997 Guam 5 ¶ 24 (citing United States v. Michael R., 90 F.3d 340, 343 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Sahhar, 56 F.3d 1026, 1028 (9th Cir. 1995)). Whether the complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. Perez v. Gutierrez, 2001 Guam 9 ¶ 5 (citing Gayle v. Hemlani, 2000 Guam 25 ¶ 22).

[12] "[T]he trial court's division of property may be revised on appeal even where the trial court's action does not amount to an abuse of discretion. This authority to revise is to be used sparingly, however, and only where the trial court's division results in manifest unfairness." Sinlao v. Sinlao, 2005 Guam 24 ¶ 10. If this court determines the distribution was manifestly unfair, it "then determine[s] whether to exercise [its] authority to revise the division pursuant to 19 GCA § 8414, or remand the matter to the trial court for redistribution of the community property." Id. ¶ 11.

IV. ANALYSIS
[13]