Richardson v. Richardson, (2009)

• Docket Number: Supreme Court Case No.: CVA08-015,Superior Court Case No.: DM0361-01
• Decision Date: 19 May 2009
• Citation: Richardson v. Richardson, 2010 Guam 14, Superior Court Case No.: DM0361-01, Supreme Court Case No.: CVA08-015 (Guam May 19, 2009)
• Parties: DARIUS A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEAN L. RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Guam Supreme Court

2010 Guam 14

DARIUS A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.JEAN L. RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellee.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA08-015 Superior Court Case No.: DM0361-01

SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

Date: May 19, 2009

Posted: December 17, 2010

OPINION

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam

Argued and submitted on May 19, 2009

Hagatna, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant: Lewis Littlepage, Esq.

Appearing for Defendant-Appellee: Jean L. Richardson, Pro Se BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; RICHARD H. BENSON, Justice Pro Tempore.

TORRES, J.:

[1]PlaintiffAppellantDarius A. Richardson("Darius") appeals from a Superior Court order requiring Darius to pay monthly child support in the amount of $3,458.00 retroactive to August 1, 2008, and denying his motion for reconsideration of an earlier order setting the amount owed for arrears for both child support and spousal support.The order also imputed income to Defendant-AppelleeJean L. Richardson("Jean") and obligated her to pay $472.00 in monthly child support.

[2]The trial court abused its discretion in assigning the entire costs of private school tuition to Darius and erred as a matter of law in granting an upward deviation from the Guam Child Support Guidelines without a prior determination that the upward deviation was based on a factor not already accounted for by the Guam Child Support Guidelines or that the children's circumstances were not within the average presumptions of the Guam Child Support Guidelines.Moreover, while we affirm the trial court's decision not to impute income to Jean based on an earning capacity as a full-time paralegal, the trial court abused its discretion in imputing income to Jean based on a part-time salary as a legal secretary without evidence regarding whether she has the necessary qualifications for a legal secretary, evidence of prevailing employment opportunities for a legal secretary in her geographic location, and a finding that there was reasonable cause for her to work part time.Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3]Darius Richardson and Jean Richardson were married in 1994, had three children, separated in May 2002 and an interlocutory judgment of divorce was granted in 2006.In August 2001, the Superior Court issued a temporary child support and spousal support order that required Darius to pay to Jean the amount of $5,500.00 per month as well as $850.00 per month in private school tuition for their eldest son.Certified Docket Sheet ("CDS")at 11(May 14, 2009)(Order, Aug. 30, 2001).In December of the same year, Darius moved to reduce his monthly support.The court later found Darius in contempt for failing to make support payments as ordered and denied his motion to reduce support.Darius sought reconsideration and the Superior Court vacated the contempt finding and set the matter for a full evidentiary hearing before the child support referee.

[4] After the evidentiary hearing, the child support referee determined that Darius should pay $4,500.00 in child support retroactive to November 2002, private school tuition for the two school-aged children, and medical and dental coverage for Jean and their three children.One thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per month in income was also imputed to Jean.Darius objected to the referee's Recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and moved to modify custody and visitation.

[5]The Superior Court reviewed the Referee's decision and issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in July 2006 establishing, among other things, the child support to be paid by Darius and awarding alternating custody between Darius and Jean.Darius did not appeal the 2006 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.In August 2008, the Superior Court entered an order setting arrears for child support and spousal support.

[6] Darius timely moved the court to reconsider its August 2008 order deciding arrears and also requested the court to address Jean's continued unemployment in calculating the monthlychild support obligation.Jean also filed several motions to revise the child support amount and to increase the tuition payments when she had custody of the children.The Superior Court consolidated all of Jean's various motions as a "motion to modify child support" and addressed Jean's motion for modification along with Darius' motion to reconsider in its November 7, 2008 Findings and Order Re: Child Support, Child Support Arrears, Judgment of Arrears ("November 2008 Order").¹ERat 274-78(Findings and Order, Nov. 10, 2008).

[7] In the November 2008 Order, the Superior Court noted that the parties agreed to use the draft 2008 Guam Child Support Guidelines²("2008 Guidelines") and cited the 2008 Guidelines as its legal authority for permitting a motion to modify child support.³ERat 274(Nov. 2008 Order).After imputation of income to Jean based on the salary of a part time legal secretary, the court determined that an upward deviation from the 2008 Guidelines was appropriate and the amount of $3,930.00 per month was reasonable for the children's expenses.Id. at 276-77.

[8] Under the 2008 Guidelines, Jean was responsible for 12% ($472.00) of the children's expenses and Darius responsible for 88% ($3,458.00).⁴Id at 277.The trial court further ordered Darius to pay tuition in the amount of $800.00 per month for each child in private school and to pay for the children's medical and dental insurance.The trial court also denied Darius' motion for reconsideration of its prior determination of child and spousal support arrears, concluding that previous payments by Darius "were primarily: (1) payments made prior to entry of court orders, (2) tuition payments to [children's private school] and (3) payments not made to the defendant directly and claimed in lieu of child support," therefore, not creditable to either child support or spousal support arrears.Id.Darius filed a notice of appeal within thirty days of the issuance of the November 2008 Order.

II.JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

[9]This court has jurisdiction over appeals from child support orders.7 GCA § 3108(a)(2005);5 GCA § 34107(b)(2005);Leon Guerrero v. Moylan, 2002 Guam 18¶ 5.⁵"An order for child support is a final judgment as to any installment or payment of money which has accrued up to the time either party makes a motion to set aside, alter or modify the order."5 GCA § 34107(b)(2005).This court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a final judgment of the Superior Court pursuant to 48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-1(a)(2)(2007);7 GCA §§ 3107(b) and 3108(a)(2005).

[10]"An award of child support is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, keeping in mind the best interests of the children."Lamer v. Lamer, 2003 Guam 14 ¶ 19(citingLeon Guerrero, 2002 Guam 18 at ¶16).Interpretation of the Guam Child Support Guidelines is a question of law reviewed de novo.SeeMendiola v. Bell, 2009 Guam 15 ¶11("A trial judge's conclusions of law... are reviewed de novo");see, e.g., J.L.P. v. V.L.A., 30 P.3d 590, 594(Alaska2001);In re Marriage of Milano, 936 P.2d 302, 303(Kan. Ct. App.1997)('Interpretation of the child support guidelines is a question of law; therefore, this court's standard of review is de novo.').A denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.In re Quitugua v. Flores, 2004 Guam 19 ¶ 12(citingWard v. Reyes, 1998 Guam 1 at ¶10).

III.DISCUSSION

[11] On appeal, Darius argues that the trial court erred when it made an upward deviation from the 2008 Guidelines for monthly expenses based on routine living necessities such as the cost of housing, food, utilities and clothing.Darius also asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to attribute adequate income to Jean and assigned the entire private school tuition costs to him.Additionally, Darius believes that the trial court erred in calculating the amount of arrears for both child support and spousal support and in denying his motion for reconsideration of the order establishing these arrearages.

A.Rebuttable Presumptions of the Guam Child Support Guidelines

1.Presumption of Support and Needs

[12] Under Guam law, 5 GCA § 34118, the support amounts established by the Guam Child Support Guidelines:

[are] based upon the earnings of the parents [and] shall operate as a rebuttable presumption as to the amounts of support which each parent can afford to contribute towards the care of the minor child[ren].

... [and the support amounts] showing the average dollar amounts necessary to raise from one (1) to at least fifteen (15) children... shall operate as a rebuttable presumption as to the needs of the child[ren].

5 GCA §§ 34118(c)(1) and (2)(2005);see also19 Guam Admin. R. & Regs. § 1202(c)(2009);45 C.F.R. § 302.56(f)(2008);42 U.S.C.A. § 667(b)(2).⁶One of the specified purposes of adopting the Guam Child Support Guidelines is "to comply with federal law (42 U.S.C. section 651 et. [sic] seq., 45 C.F.R. section 302.56)."19 GAR § 1202(a)(4).Therefore, we shall interpret the Guam Child Support Guidelines in a manner that fulfills its stated purpose in section 1202(a)(4) of Title 19 of the Guam Administrative Rules and Regulations to be consistent with the federal laws that regulate the Guam Child Support Guidelines.⁷19 GAR § 1202(a)(4);see, e.g., Ley v. Forman, 800 A.2d 1, 7(Md. Ct. Spec. App.2002);In re Plaisted, 824 A.2d 148, 150(N.H.2003)(observing that one of the purposes for adopting state's child support guidelines was to comply with federal law).

[13] In any child support action, the Guam Child Support Guidelines shall be used.19 GAR § 1202(c)(1).As a California appellate court aptly stated:

"Both federal and state law refer to a uniform statewide 'guideline'(or 'guidelines'); and the statutory formula for computing child support... is expressly labeled the 'statewide uniform guideline.'...

...