PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Guam

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Guam >> 2014 >> [2014] GUSC 6

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

Guerrero v Guerrero [2014] GUSC 6; 2014 Guam 06 (24 March 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM


DEANNA CAROL LEON GUERRERO,
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,


v.


KENNETH JOSE LEON GUERRERO,
Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.


Supreme Court Case No.: CVA13-004
Superior Court Case No.: CV0466-10


OPINION


Filed: March 24, 2014


Cite as: 2014 Guam 6


Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on October 22, 2013
Hagåtña, Guam


Appearing for Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee:
Daniel S. Somerfleck, Esq.
Somerfleck & Assocs., PLLC
866 Rte. 7, Nelson Bldg. #102
Maina, GU 96932
Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-
Appellant:
Michael J. Berman, Esq.
Berman O'Connor & Mann
Bank of Guam Bldg., Ste. 503
111 Chalan Santo Papa
Hagåtña, GU 96910



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


CARBULLIDO, C.J.:
[1] Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Kenneth Jose Leon Guerrero ("Kenneth") appeals from a decision and order granting Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Deanna Carol Leon Guerrero's ("Deanna") Motion to Enforce Stipulated Judgment, and awarding her one-half of Kenneth's income. Kenneth argues that the trial court erred in concluding that his self-employment at Kindo Electric was "successor employment" to his job at Verizon pursuant to the parties' prior Stipulated Judgment, and in requiring him to pay one-half of his monthly income to Deanna. Deanna cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in not specifying that the award be retroactive to the date when Kenneth stopped paying her monthly alimony.[2]


[2] We hold the trial court erred in concluding that Kindo qualifies as a "successor employer" without conducting any factual inquiry, and in awarding Deanna one-half of Kenneth's total income without specifying its source or whether it applies retroactively. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment, and remand for a decision not inconsistent with this opinion.


I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
[3]


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/gu/cases/GUSC/2014/6.html