Sablan v Sablan [2017] GUSC 3 (16 June 2017)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

ANTONIO ARTERO SABLAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

PATRIA UNTALAN SABLAN,

Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA15-001
Superior Court Case No.: DM0277-11

OPINION

Filed: June 16, 2017

Cite as: 2017 Guam 3

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on October 27, 2015
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee: Delia Lujan Wolff, Esq. Lujan & Wolff LLP DNA Building 238 Archbishop Flores St., Ste. 300 Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant: William Benjamin Pole, Esq. Law Offices of Gumataotao & Pole 115 San Ramon St., Ste. 301 Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice; ALEXANDRO C. CASTRO, Justice Pro Tempore.^[1]

TORRES, C.J.:
[1] Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Antonio Artero Sablan (“Antonio”) appeals from a final decree of divorce ending the marriage between Antonio and Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Patria Untalan Sablan (“Patria”) and dividing the parties’ property. Antonio raises several issues on appeal respecting the trial court’s characterization and division of the parties’ property and debt, as well as the court’s finding that he committed adultery. Similarly, Patria raises several issues on cross-appeal concerning the trial court’s characterization and division of property as well as its denial of spousal support and refusal to find Antonio at fault for mental cruelty.
[2] For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3] Antonio and Patria married in Reno, Nevada on March 30, 1984. During the next 25 years, they separated (and reunited) on numerous occasions for varying lengths of time, with the longest period of separation lasting 11 months. In addition to these periods of separation, the parties “attempted” to divorce on three occasions before the filing of the divorce proceedings underlying this appeal. Record on Appeal (“RA”), tab 77 at 3-4 (Finds. Fact & Concl. L., Oct. 31, 2014).
[4] Prior to the marriage, Antonio owned several pieces of real property in his name alone. During the course of the parties’ marriage, Antonio

sold or otherwise transferred his interest in property which was held in his name only to purchase or obtain [other] property, title to which was held in several ways: in his name only, in both his and [Patria]’s names, in his and [Patria]’s names with [Patria] later quitclaiming her interest in some of these properties and, finally, in [Patria]’s name only.
Id. at 25. The marital residence, which the parties refer to as “the Blue House,” was held in Patria’s name alone. Id.
[5] In March 2009, after what would become the parties’ final separation, Patria moved out of the Blue House and into a unit at the Pahong Court apartments in Chalan Pago (“Pahong Court”). The unit is held in Antonio’s name alone. Antonio continued to reside in the Blue House after the parties’ separation.
[6] On April 7, 2011, Antonio filed for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. Patria counterclaimed, seeking dissolution on the grounds of extreme mental cruelty, desertion, and adultery. After a bench trial, the trial court granted Antonio a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, and Patria a divorce on the ground of adultery. The court characterized each of the parties’ real and personal properties as either community or separate, and divided the property accordingly.^[2] Additionally, the court determined that Patria is entitled to 40.5% of Antonio’s net monthly retirement benefits as her half of the community’s share of the benefits, while Antonio is entitled to half the value of Patria’s retirement plans at the time of separation. The court awarded Patria $73,046.08 as arrears owed on her share of Antonio’s retirement benefits.
[7] The court also found that Antonio “has paid for nearly all of the debts after the parties’ final separation.” Id. at 38. Noting the parties’ “fail[ure] to clearly identify the proportion in which each party is obligated for the debts,” the court held Antonio solely liable for the community debts on the basis of his being at fault for adultery. Id. at 40.
[8] A Final Decree of Divorce was entered on December 9, 2014. Antonio timely filed a notice of appeal, and Patria timely filed a notice of cross-appeal.

II. JURISDICTION

[9] This court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a final decree of divorce pursuant to 48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 115-30 (2017)), and 7 GCA §§ 3107 and 3108(a) (2005).
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
[10] This court reviews de novo the trial court’s characterization of property in a marital dissolution action as community or separate. Kloppenburg v. Kloppenburg, 2014 Guam 5 ¶ 16 (citing Babauta v. Babauta, 2011 Guam 15 ¶ 18 (“Babauta I”)).
[11] The trial court’s findings of fact after a bench trial are reviewed for clear error, while its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Id. ¶ 17 (citing Babauta I, 2011 Guam 15 ¶ 19). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous where it is not supported by substantial evidence, and this court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. (citing Babauta v. Babauta, 2013 Guam 17 ¶ 17 (“Babauta II”)).
[12] The trial court’s distribution of community property after rendering a divorce on the ground of adultery or extreme cruelty is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See