{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f1\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial;}
{\f2\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070309020205020404}Courier New;}{\f36\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f37\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f39\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}
{\f40\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f41\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f42\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f43\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}
{\f44\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}{\f46\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f47\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Cyr;}{\f49\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek;}{\f50\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Tur;}
{\f51\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial (Hebrew);}{\f52\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial (Arabic);}{\f53\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}{\f54\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial (Vietnamese);}{\f56\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CE;}
{\f57\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Cyr;}{\f59\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Greek;}{\f60\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Tur;}{\f61\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New (Hebrew);}
{\f62\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New (Arabic);}{\f63\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Baltic;}{\f64\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;
\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;
\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;\red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*
\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tblind0\tblindtype3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar
\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid6379326 header;}{
\s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Level 1;}{
\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 Level 2;}{
\s18\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext18 Level 3;}{
\s19\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext19 Level 4;}{
\s20\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext20 Level 5;}{
\s21\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext21 Level 6;}{
\s22\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext22 Level 7;}{
\s23\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext23 Level 8;}{
\s24\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext24 Level 9;}{
\s25\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext25 WP_Heading 1;}{
\s26\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext26 WP_Heading 2;}{
\s27\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext27 WP_Heading 3;}{\*\cs28 \additive \sbasedon10 Default Para;}{
\s29\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext29 WP_Body Text;}{\*\cs30 \additive \ul\cf2 \sbasedon10 WP_Hyperlink;}{
\s31\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext31 \ssemihidden footnote text;}{\*\cs32 \additive \super \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden 
footnote reference;}{\s33\ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext33 _level1;}{\s34\ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext34 _level2;}{
\s35\ql \fi-720\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext35 
_level3;}{\s36\ql \fi-720\li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext36 
_level4;}{\s37\ql \fi-720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext37 
_level5;}{\s38\ql \fi-720\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext38 _level6;}{
\s39\ql \fi-720\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext39 _level7;}{
\s40\ql \fi-720\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext40 _level8;}{
\s41\ql \fi-720\li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext41 _level9;}{
\s42\ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\sbasedon0 \snext42 _levsl1;}{\s43\ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext43 _levsl2;}{\s44\ql \fi-720\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext44 _levsl3;}{
\s45\ql \fi-720\li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext45 _levsl4;}{
\s46\ql \fi-720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext46 _levsl5;}{
\s47\ql \fi-720\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext47 _levsl6;}{
\s48\ql \fi-720\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext48 _levsl7;}{
\s49\ql \fi-720\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext49 _levsl8;}{
\s50\ql \fi-720\li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext50 _levsl9;}{
\s51\ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\sbasedon0 \snext51 _levnl1;}{\s52\ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext52 _levnl2;}{\s53\ql \fi-720\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext53 _levnl3;}{
\s54\ql \fi-720\li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext54 _levnl4;}{
\s55\ql \fi-720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext55 _levnl5;}{
\s56\ql \fi-720\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext56 _levnl6;}{
\s57\ql \fi-720\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext57 _levnl7;}{
\s58\ql \fi-720\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext58 _levnl8;}{
\s59\ql \fi-720\li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext59 _levnl9;}{
\s60\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext60 WP_Normal;}{
\s61\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext61 Definition T;}{\s62\ql \li360\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx360\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin360\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext62 Definition L;}{\*\cs63 
\additive \i \sbasedon10 Definition;}{\s64\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs48\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext64 H1;}{
\s65\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs36\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext65 H2;}{
\s66\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs28\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext66 H3;}{
\s67\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext67 H4;}{
\s68\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext68 H5;}{
\s69\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs16\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext69 H6;}{
\s70\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \i\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext70 Address;}{\s71\ql \li360\ri360\nowidctlpar
\tx360\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin360\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext71 Blockquote;}{\*\cs72 
\additive \i \sbasedon10 CITE;}{\*\cs73 \additive \f2\fs20 \sbasedon10 CODE;}{\*\cs74 \additive \i \sbasedon10 WP_Emphasis;}{\*\cs75 \additive \ul\cf12 \sbasedon10 FollowedHype;}{\*\cs76 \additive \b\f2\fs20 \sbasedon10 Keyboard;}{
\s77\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx959\tx1918\tx2876\tx3835\tx4794\tx5754\tx6713\tx7672\tx8630\tx9356\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f2\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext77 
Preformatted;}{\s78\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\brdrt\brdrdb\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f1\fs16\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext78 zBottom of;}{
\s79\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\brdrb\brdrdb\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f1\fs16\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext79 zTop of For;}{\*\cs80 \additive \f2 \sbasedon10 
Sample;}{\*\cs81 \additive \b \sbasedon10 WP_Strong;}{\*\cs82 \additive \f2\fs20 \sbasedon10 Typewriter;}{\*\cs83 \additive \i \sbasedon10 Variable;}{\*\cs84 \additive \v\cf6 \sbasedon10 HTML Markup;}{\*\cs85 \additive \v \sbasedon10 Comment;}{
\s86\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext86 _26;}{\s87\ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext87 _25;}{\s88\ql \li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext88 _24;}{\s89\ql \li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext89 _23;}{\s90\ql \li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext90 _22;}{\s91\ql \li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext91 _21;}{\s92\ql \li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext92 _20;}{\s93\ql \li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext93 _19;}{\s94\ql \li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext94 _18;}{\s95\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext95 _17;}{
\s96\ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext96 
_16;}{\s97\ql \li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext97 _15;}{
\s98\ql \li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext98 _14;}{
\s99\ql \li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext99 _13;}{
\s100\ql \li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext100 _12;}{
\s101\ql \li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext101 _11;}{\s102\ql \li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext102 _10;}{\s103\ql \li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext103 _9;}{\s104\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext104 _8;}{
\s105\ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext105 
_7;}{\s106\ql \li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext106 _6;}{
\s107\ql \li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext107 _5;}{
\s108\ql \li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext108 _4;}{
\s109\ql \li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext109 _3;}{\s110\ql \li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext110 _2;}{\s111\ql \li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext111 _1;}{\s112\ql \li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext112 _;}{\s113\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar
\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext113 \styrsid6379326 footer;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid681084\rsid2121715\rsid2774033\rsid3342460
\rsid4069760\rsid4137269\rsid5324838\rsid5393419\rsid5509384\rsid6379326\rsid7042792\rsid7303961\rsid8071769\rsid8472681\rsid10240164\rsid11488697\rsid11686632\rsid11883395\rsid12211412\rsid13512887\rsid14501000\rsid15219892\rsid15621603\rsid15941586
\rsid16064611}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6818;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author  }{\operator Kym Freriks}{\creatim\yr2008\mo2\dy28\hr16\min30}{\revtim\yr2008\mo2\dy28\hr16\min51}{\version6}{\edmins12}{\nofpages21}{\nofwords9433}
{\nofchars53772}{\*\company  }{\nofcharsws63079}{\vern16393}{\*\password 00000000}}{\*\xmlnstbl }\paperw12240\paperh15840\margl1440\margr1440\margt1008\margb720\gutter0 
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\hyphhotz0\notabind\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace0\dgvspace0\dghorigin0\dgvorigin0\dghshow0\dgvshow0\jexpand\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot3342460 \fet0
{\*\wgrffmtfilter 013f}{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15219892 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15219892 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15219892 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15219892 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \psz1\sbknone\linex0\headery1008\footery288\endnhere\titlepg\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid8071769\sftnbj {\headerl \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid16064611 Lamb v. Hoffman}{\fs20\insrsid16064611 , Opinion\tab Page \chpgn  of }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid16064611  NUMPAGES \\* arabic \\* MERGEFORMAT }}{\fldrslt {
\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid8071769 33}}}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\insrsid16064611 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid16064611 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-14\slmult0\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid16064611 
\par }}{\headerr \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14501000 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid16064611\charrsid14501000 Lamb v. Hoffman}{
\fs20\insrsid16064611\charrsid14501000 , Opinion\tab Page \chpgn  of }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid16064611\charrsid14501000  NUMPAGES \\* arabic \\* MERGEFORMAT }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid5324838 33}}}\sectd 
\linex0\endnhere\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\fs20\insrsid16064611\charrsid14501000 
\par }\pard\plain \s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\brdrb\brdrs\brdrw10\brsp20 \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14501000 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\fs20\insrsid16064611\charrsid14501000 
\par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14501000 {\insrsid16064611 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl-14\slmult0\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16064611 
\par }}{\footerl \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16064611 
\par }}{\footerr \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16064611 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 CAROLYN JANE LAMB,}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par Plaintiff-Appellee,
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 v.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 BENJAMIN RALPH HOFFMAN,}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par Defendant-Appellant
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Supreme Court Case No.:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 CVA05-015
\par Superior Court Case No.:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 CS0589-03
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 OPINION}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3342460\charrsid5324838 Filed:}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3342460\charrsid5324838 February 18, 2008
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Cite as:}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 2008 Guam 2}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on May 3, 2006
\par Mangilao, Guam
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trgaph120\trrh1926\trleft0\trkeep\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblind120\tblindtype3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr
\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4695\clpadl120\clpadt120\clpadb58\clpadr120\clpadfl3\clpadft3\clpadfb3\clpadfr3\clshdrawnil \cellx4695\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4695\clpadl120\clpadt120\clpadb58\clpadr120\clpadfl3\clpadft3\clpadfb3\clpadfr3\clshdrawnil \cellx9390\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\pararsid5324838 {
\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 For Defendant-Appellant:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par Thomas M. Tarpley, Jr., }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Esq.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
\par Tarpley & Moroni, LLP
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7042792 Bank of Hawaii Bldg., Ste. 402}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par 134 W. Soledad Ave.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910\cell }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 For Plaintiff-Appellee:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par G. Patrick Civille, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Esq.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  
\par Civille & Tang, PLLC\tab 
\par 330 Hernan Cortez Ave., Ste. 200
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910
\par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow 
\ts11\trgaph120\trrh1926\trleft0\trkeep\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblind120\tblindtype3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4695\clpadl120\clpadt120\clpadb58\clpadr120\clpadfl3\clpadft3\clpadfb3\clpadfr3\clshdrawnil \cellx4695\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4695\clpadl120\clpadt120\clpadb58\clpadr120\clpadfl3\clpadft3\clpadfb3\clpadfr3\clshdrawnil \cellx9390\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14501000\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 BEFORE:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice,}{
\cs32\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s31\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\super\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 \chftn }{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
 Chief Justice F. Philip Carbullido assumed the title of Associate Justice prior to the issuance of this Opinion.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice,}{
\cs32\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s31\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\super\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 \chftn }{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  Associate Justice Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood heard oral argument in this case.  Prior to
 the issuance of this Opinion, she was sworn in as Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court of Guam.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  and ROBERT J. TORRES, Associate Justice.}{
\cs32\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s31\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\super\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 \chftn }{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
 Associate Justice Robert J. Torres assumed the title of Chief Justice prior to the issuance of this Opinion.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 TORRES, J.:}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [1]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
Defendant-Appellant Benjamin Ralph Hoffman appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court that ratified the findings and recommendations of the Child Support Referee.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 We affirm in part and remand in part for further proceedings.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12211412 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 I.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [2]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Defendant-Appellant Benjamin Ralph Hoffman (\'93Benjamin\'94)}{
\cs32\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s31\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\super\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 \chftn }{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  The preferred practice in family law cases is to refer to the parties by their first name.  }{
\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Mano v. Mano}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 , 2005 Guam 2 \'b6 1 n.1.  We continue that practice in the instant case while recognizing that the parties do not share the same last name.}}}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  and Plaintiff-Appellee Carolyn Jane Lamb (\'93Carolyn\'94) were married in 1982.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 They have one daughter, Emma, born in 1989.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
In 1998, Carolyn filed a divorce action in Pictou County in the Province of Nova Scotia, Canada.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
A trial was held on February 28 and 29, 2000 and March 1, 2000, in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, which functions as a trial court under the Canadian justice system.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
On March 1, 2000, at the conclusion of the proceedings, the judge issued an oral order that was subsequently memorialized in a written decision released April 6, 2000. In the decision, Justice Scanlan conservatively estimated Benjamin\rquote s income fr
om his work as a radiologist to be C$300,000 per year and ordered him to pay Carolyn C$2,391 per month in child support and C$10,000 per month in spousal support. The spousal support was to continue \'93
until such time as [Carolyn] receives her share of the division of matrimonial property.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Record on Appeal (\'93RA\'94
), Tab 1, p. 24 (Decision, Apr. 6, 2000).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [3]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
At the time of the trial, the evidence indicated that the matrimonial assets, mostly venture capital stocks, were worth between 17 and 26 million Canadian dollars.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 However, Benjamin transferred many of those assets to limited companies or offshore trust accounts prior to the trial.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Justice Scanlan characterized the transfers as a \'93deliberate and complicated scheme\'94 designed to deprive Carolyn of her share of the matrimonial assets.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 RA, Tab 1, p. 22 (Decision, Apr. 6, 2000).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Very little evidence was presented in the court below as to the value of the assets currently in Benjamin\rquote s possession.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 However, neither party contends that Carolyn has received her full share of the marital estate.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [4]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
On March 10, 2000, after the oral decision but before it was memorialized in written form, the court issued a Corollary Relief Judgment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
According to Justice Scanlan, the Corollary Relief Judgment \'93was intended to be an Interim Judgment to permit [Carolyn] to take immediate steps to protect or secure her share of matrimonial assets awarded as per the oral Decision. . . .\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Supplemental Excerpt of Records (\'93SER\'94), Tab 3, p. 2 (Amended and Final Corollary Relief Judgment, Oct. 10, 2000).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
On the same day, the court issued an Ex Parte Order in response to a motion that Carolyn had made to acquire shares of stock held by Daniel Hoffman, Benjamin\rquote s brother.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The Decision}{\cs32\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\s31\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\super\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 \chftn }{
\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  To an American legal observer, the Decision issued March 30, 2000 strongly resembles a simple transcript of the hearing.  However, in the common law provinces of 
Canada where oral decisions are much more common than in the United States, transcripts are converted into written form with minor editing and can thereafter be cited as precedent.  }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 See generally }{
\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 J.E. C\'f4t\'e9, }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 The Oral Judgment Practice in the Canadian Appellate Courts}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
, 5 J. App. Prac. & Process 435 (2003).  We therefore give the same legal weight to the oral Decision of March 10, 2000 as we do to the written Ex Parte Order issued the same day.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
 accompanying the signing of the Ex Parte Order was issued in written form on March 30, 2000.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
In the Decision, Justice Scanlan indicated that the shares would be held by her attorneys in trust to be used by Carolyn \'93at her discretion so as to allow her to start making payments on the maintenance portion of the previous order.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 That will be spousal and child maintenance until we see if we can get this matter straightened out.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 ER, p. 97 (Decision, March 30, 2000).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 As a result of the Ex Parte Order, 13,500 common shares of Cell-Loc stock, previously registered in the name of 3001497 NS, Ltd.,}{
\cs32\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s31\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\super\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 \chftn }{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  Also designated 3001497 Nova Scotia Limited or Nova Scotia Limited 3001497.}}}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  were registered in trust for Carolyn.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
The shares were subsequently liquidated for a value of approximately C$343,000.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Finally, on October 10, 2000, Justice Scanlan issued an Amended and Final Corollary Relief Judgment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [5]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab The Corollary Relief Judgment released on March 30
, 2000, the Decision released on April 6, 2000, and the Amended and Final Corollary Relief Judgment released on October 10, 2000 are all intended to be written memorializations of the oral decision of March 1, 2000.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 They are consistent in that all three tr
ansfer to Carolyn 30,300 directly-owned shares of Cell-Loc stock and 43,000 shares of Cell-Loc stock held under Nova Scotia Limited 3001495.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
However, only the Ex Parte Order and the accompanying Decision mention the 13,500 shares of Cell-Loc stock held under the similarly named limited partnership Nova Scotia Limited 3001497 (\'933001497 Cell-Loc shares\'94). }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [6]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
Benjamin believed that the transfer and subsequent liquidation of the 3001497 Cell-Loc shares was for the purpose of meeting his child and spousal support obligations through August 1, 2002.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Beginning August 23, 2002, he tendered eight monthly checks of $1,550 US to Carolyn followed by seven monthly checks of $1,600 US.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The checks were never negotiated, possibly because one or more of the checks contained a handwritten note that read as follows: \'93
1) Cashing this check is acknowledgement that all child support payments [to] Emma Hoffman are current 2) acknowledgement that child support has }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Never}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  Been in arrears/ Ben Hoffman.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 ER, p. 220 (Photocopy of Check).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [7]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
Benjamin subsequently moved to Guam, and Carolyn pursued him there to collect on child and spousal support allegedly owed to her.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
On August 12, 2003, the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Attorney General\rquote s (\'93AG\rquote s\'94) Office filed a registration of a foreign support order, seeking to register the Pictou County order regarding Benjamin.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The AG\rquote s Office then sought an order to show cause regarding Benjamin\rquote s \'93willful failure\'94
 to comply with the orders of the Canadian court, and additionally requested that the court confirm and enter the Canadian order.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
ER, p. 5 (Order to Show Cause, Aug. 20, 2003).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The AG\rquote s Office wanted Benjamin to be held in contempt and asked that he be committed 
\'93to jail for a period not to exceed two (2) days per count of contempt.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 ER, p. 3 (Application for Order to Show Cause, Aug. 12, 2003).
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The AG\rquote 
s Office also filed a Declaration of Arrears for Child Support, showing arrears of $69,604 US as of June 2003, and a Declaration of Arrears for Spousal Support, showing arrears of $297,800 US as of June 2003.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [8]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab The case eventually went before Child Support Referee Linda Ingles (\'93Referee Ingles\'94 or \'93the Referee\'94).
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 During the proceedings, Benjamin was indicted for perjury and arrested in Referee Ingles\rquote  courtroom.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The charges were eventually dropped.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 On January 26, 2004, Referee Ingles issued Findings and a Recommended Order.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
She determined that Benjamin should not be given credit for the transfer of the 3001497 Cell-Loc shares because they were marital assets.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Benjamin was then found to be in contempt for failing to pay his child and spousal support arrears.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [9]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Benjamin filed an objection with the Superior Court to the Referee\rquote s findings and moved for a new trial.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
In his objection, Benjamin asserted that he was not given a jury trial, that he was not given credit for the transfer of the 3001497 Cell-Loc shares, and that Referee Ingles made no finding that he had the ability to pay the ordered support.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Benjamin also argued that his indictment and arrest for perjury resulted in a trial that was fundamentally unfair, thus requiring a new trial.
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The Superior Court, reviewing for an abuse of discretion, confirmed and ratified the Referee\rquote s order and denied Benjamin\rquote 
s motion for a new trial.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Benjamin timely filed a notice of appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12211412 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 II.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [10]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab This court has jurisdiction over appeals of a final judgment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 48 U.S.C. \'a7 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 110-176 (2008)); 7 GCA \'a7\'a7 3107, 3108(a) (2005).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [11]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
The issues relating to the right to a jury trial, the interpretation of the Canadian order, the standard of review applicable to the Referee\rquote s findings, and the contempt charges are all questions of law which this court reviews }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 de novo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 . }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Lizama v. Dep\rquote t of Pub. Works}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 2005 Guam 12 \'b6 13.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 However, \'93[a] trial court\rquote 
s decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal except for cases of clear abuse of discretion.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Adams v. Duenas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 1998 Guam 15 \'b6 16.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Under this standard,}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \'93before reversing a lower court\rquote 
s decision, we must first have a definite and firm conviction the trial court committed clear error of judgment in its conclusion.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
J.J. Moving Servs., Inc. v. Sanko Bussan (Guam) Co.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 1998 Guam 19 \'b6 14. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12211412 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 III.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [12]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Benjamin challenges the trial court\rquote s ratification of the Referee\rquote s order
, and makes several arguments in this appeal: 1) that he has the right to a trial by jury; 2) that he is entitled to a new trial based on \'93fundamental fairness\'94
 because he was arrested for perjury in front of the Referee; 3) that the Superior Court erred in failing to use }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 de novo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
 review of the Referee\rquote s findings and recommended order; 4) that the Superior Court erred in rejecting Benjamin\rquote s objection to the Referee\rquote s finding of contempt without making a specific finding that he had the ability to pay the or
der; and 5) that the Superior Court erred in finding him in contempt because it failed to give him a credit from the sale of the 3001497 Cell-Loc shares.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [13]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Carolyn believes that the Superior Court correctly ratified the Referee\rquote s order and counters eac
h of Benjamin\rquote s arguments. She first argues that Benjamin was not entitled to a jury trial.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
She further contends that the Superior Court properly denied Benjamin\rquote s motion for a new }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8071769\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 trial because he failed to show that the Referee was improperly influenced in making her decision.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 She maintains that the Referee correctly refused to apply the money from the sale of Cell-Loc shares to Benjamin\rquote s obligations to pay spousal and child support.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Carolyn additionally argues that the Superior Court was correct in refusing to apply }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 de novo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  review to the Referee\rquote s order and that it properly affirmed the Referee\rquote s findings.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Finally, Carolyn asserts that the appeal should be dismissed because Benjamin failed to provide this court with transcripts of the Referee
\rquote s hearings.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 We address each argument below.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 A.\tab Right to a Jury Trial}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [14]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
Benjamin makes several arguments to support his contention that he was denied the right to a jury trial provided by 7 GCA \'a7 22104.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
First, he asserts that section 22104 is triggered because the AG\rquote s Office requested imprisonment of two days per count of contempt, or a total of eighty days.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 He next argues that as the action of the AG\rquote s Office against him is a case at law, \'93a criminal action, not a case in equity,\'94 and that the criminal nature o
f the action is evident in the request for eighty days imprisonment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Appellant\rquote s Br., p. 7 (Jan. 10, 2006).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Carolyn, however, points out that no fine was ordered in the case, and Benjamin would not have served time in confinement because \'93
the Government and the parties stipulated that [Benjamin] would not serve any jail time if he was found in contempt.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
ER, p. 237 (Findings & Recommended Order, Jan. 26, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
She also counters that actions for support have historically been treated as equitable actions.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 C
arolyn finally argues that nothing in the Superior Court Rules for Expedited Process, which govern proceedings before the Child Support Referee, authorize a jury trial in contempt proceedings. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 1.\tab Relevant Guam law}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [15]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Guam\rquote s contempt statute states, in relevant part:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \'93Any person found guilty of a contempt of court pursuant to \'a7 34102(b) is subject to the same penalties as a person found guilty of a petty misdemeanor.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 7 GCA \'a7 34101(b) (2005).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
If convicted of a petty misdemeanor, \'93the court shall set a definite term not to exceed sixty (60) days.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 9 GCA \'a7 80.34(b) (2005).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [16]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Benjamin asserts that his right to trial by jury derives from 7 GCA \'a7
 22104 (2005), which states in its entirety:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \'a7 22104.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Right to Jury Trial.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
In all cases at law in which the demand, exclusive of interest and costs, or the value of the property in controversy amounts to more than Twenty Dollars ($20.00), except for small claims cases and appeals thereafter, and in all criminal cases where the a
uthorized punishment consists of confinement for more than sixty (60) days or a fine of more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), the parties shall be entitled to a trial by jury.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3342460\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Furthermore, Guam\rquote 
s contempt statute also specifically provides for a jury trial:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \'93
If the person charged with contempt is entitled to a trial by jury, such trial shall be provided.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 7 GCA \'a7 34102(f) (2005).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [17]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Benjamin argues that the action of the AG\rquote s Office was a \'93
criminal case[] where the authorized punishment consists of confinement for more than sixty (60) days,\'94 that triggered the right to a jury trial under 7 GCA \'a7 22104.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 He contends that he \'93is entitled to a trial by jury\'94 under 7 GCA \'a7 34102(f).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The sanction requested by the AG\rquote s Office was two days per count of contempt based on forty counts, to be served consecutively, resulting in a total of eighty days of confinement.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 ER, p. 2-4 (Application for Order to Show Cause, Aug. 12, 2003).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 He maintains the Superior Court should aggregate the two-day confinement requested for each count of contempt, and treat the case as a serious offense that requires the right to a jury trial.}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [18]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Benjamin\rquote s argument presents a novel interpretation of Guam law.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 It requires this court to examine not only the distinction between petty and s
erious offenses, but also to decide whether the sentence for contempt should be aggregated so as to give the alleged contemnor the right to a trial by jury.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 2.\tab Petty Offenses and Serious Offenses}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [19]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab The United States Supreme
 Court has long recognized that trial by jury has been reserved for serious offenses and, that at the adoption of the Constitution, \'93there were numerous offenses, commonly described as \lquote petty,\rquote  which were tried summarily without a jury.
\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Dist. of Columbia v. Clawans}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 300 U.S. 617, 624 (1937).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Thus, in deciding whether the offense warranted a jury trial, courts have looked to whether, under the common law, those charged with that offense were afforded the right to a trial by jury.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 See}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Callan v. Wilson}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 127 U.S. 540, 555-56 (1888);}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  Dist. of Columbia v. Colts}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
, 282 U.S. 63, 73 (1930).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [20]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
The Court subsequently departed from mere reliance on common law precedent, and held that a statutory offense that was not traditionally considered a crime at common law could \'93
be deemed so serious as to be comparable with common-law crimes, . . . thus . . . entitl[ing] the accused to the benefit of a jury trial prescribed by the Constitution.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Clawans}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 300 U.S. at 625.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 After }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Clawans}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , the Court continued to uphold its adoptio
n of a more objective standard, and eventually concluded that the decisive factor in determining whether an offense was petty or serious was the penalty authorized by the legislature.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Cheff v. Schnackenburg}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
, 384 U.S. 373 (1966), the Court determined that an offense with a maximum penalty of six months\rquote  confinement was petty and a jury trial was not required.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 More relevant to this case, the Court, referencing }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Cheff}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
, later stated:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \'93Contempt did not \lquote of itself\rquote  warrant treatment as other than a petty offense; the six months\rquote 
 punishment imposed permitted dealing with the case as a prosecution for \lquote a petty offense, which under our decisions does not require a jury trial.\rquote \'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Bloom v. Illinois}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 391 U.S. 194, 197 (1968) (quoting }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Cheff
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 384 U.S. at 379-380). }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [21]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Then, in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Duncan v. Louisiana}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 391 U.S. 145, 160 (1968), the Court held that an offense that carried a punishment of two years\rquote  imprisonment was serious and invoked the right to a trial by jury.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The Court in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Duncan}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  did not establish a bright-line rule relating the right to a jury trial and the length of imprisonment, but emphasized that the legislature\rquote 
s maximum authorized penalty was the basis for determining whether an offense was serious or petty. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Duncan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 39
1 U.S. at 161.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The maximum authorized sentence standard was embraced again in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Frank v. United States}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 395 U.S. 147, 148 (1969), where the Court looked at the \'93
objective indications of the seriousness with which society regards the offense.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 See also Baldwin v. New York}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 399 U.S. 66, 68 (1970) (plurality opinion) (stating that \'93we have found the most relevant such criteria in the severity of the maximum authorized penalty\'94).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The Court later stated that it would not rely solely on \'93the maximum prison term authorized for a particular offense\'94
 to determine whether an offense was serious and invoked the right to a jury trial, but nevertheless acknowledged that \'93[p]rimary emphasis . . . must be placed on the maximum authorized period of incarceration.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Blanton v. N. Las Vegas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 489 U.S. 538, 542 (1989).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The Court in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Blanton}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  announced the following rule when determining an offense to be petty:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Although we did not hold in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Baldwin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  that an offense carrying a maximum prison term of six months or less automatically qualifies as a \'93petty\'94
 offense, and decline to do so today, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 we do find it appropriate to presume for purposes of the Sixth Amendment that society views such an offense as \'93petty.\'94 }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 A defendant is entitled to a jury trial in such circumstances only if he can demo
nstrate that any additional statutory penalties, viewed in conjunction with the maximum authorized period of incarceration, are so severe that they clearly reflect a legislative determination that the offense in question is a \'93serious\'94 one. 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  at 543 (emphasis added).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Therefore, for purposes of a jury trial, any offense that carries a maximum prison term of six months or less was presumptively a petty offense and thus, did not require a trial by jury.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 See generally}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  Jeff E. Butler, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Petty Offenses, Serious Consequences: Multiple Petty Offenses and the Sixth Amendment Right to Jury Trial}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 872 (1995).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [22]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab In the case at bar, Guam\rquote s contempt statute expressly states that a person convicted of contempt \'93
is subject to the same penalties as a person found guilty of a petty misdemeanor\'94 under 7 GCA \'a7 34101(b), which carries a maximum term of confinement of sixty days.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 9 GCA \'a7 80.34(b) (2005).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Applying the presumption announced in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Blanton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , the fact that a contempt offense is treated as a petty mis
demeanor, leads us to believe that a contempt offense under Guam law is presumptively a petty offense which does not carry the right to a jury trial.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Yet our analysis does not end here.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 We next examine Benjamin\rquote 
s argument that aggregating the penalty requested by the AG\rquote s Office triggers his right to a jury trial under 7 GCA \'a7 22401.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 3.\tab Aggregation of Penalties of a Petty Offense}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [23]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Benjamin relies on the holding of the United States Supreme Court in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Codispoti v. Pennsylvania}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
, 418 U.S. 506 (1974), to argue that a jury trial is required in his case because he faced a potential aggregate penalty of more than sixty days\rquote  confinement.}{\cs32\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \chftn {\footnote 
\pard\plain \s31\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\super\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 \chftn }{
\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961   The defendants in }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Codispoti}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 v. Pennsylvania}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
, 418 U.S. 506 (1974), were alleged to have committed contempt during their criminal trial, and were tried before another judge in separate post-verdict proceedings for the allegedly contemptuous conduct during the criminal trial.  }{
\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Id.}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  at 507.  The judge in the contempt proceedings denied a request for a jury trial.  }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Id.}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
 at 508.  He then found that one defendant committed seven acts of contempt, and imposed separate sentences for each act.  }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Id.}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
 at 509. Another defendant was found to have committed six acts of contempt, and also received separate sentences for each act.  }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Id.}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
  Although the individual sentence for each act was no more than six months, the judge ordered the sentences be served consecutively.  As a result, the defendants\rquote  terms of imprisonment exceeded six 
months.  The defendants appealed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed without an opinion.  }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Id.}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
 at 511.  The case then went to the United States Supreme Court, and certiorari was granted on the following questions:
\par }\pard\plain \qj \li720\ri720\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6379326 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 1. Should petitioners rec
eive cumulative sentences for contempt of court imposed at the end of a trial where the total effective sentence received must be used rather than the individual sentences in order to determine the seriousness of the contempt and thereby determine whether
 the accused should be afforded the right to a jury trial?
\par 2. Should the strong possibility of a substantial term of imprisonment require that an accused be afforded the right to a jury trial?
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6379326 {\i\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Id. }{\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 at 511 n.3.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The Court in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Codispoti }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 first confirme
d the right to a jury trial for serious criminal contempts, but recognized also that \'93petty contempts, like other petty crimes, could be tried without a jury.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  at 511.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 See Duncan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 391 U.S. 145, 159 (holding that the right to jury trial does not apply to certain petty offenses).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The Court then acknowledged its prior rulings that \'93
established a fixed dividing line between petty and serious offenses: those crimes carrying a sentence of more than six months are serious crimes and those carrying a sentence of six months or less are petty crimes.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  at 512.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Thus, in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Bloom v. Illinois}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
, 391 U.S. 194 (1968), the Court held that sentences up to six months could be imposed for criminal contempt without a jury trial, but not if the sentence imposed was twenty-four months in prison.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Codispoti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 418 U.S. at 511-12.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [24]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
The Court, however, had never ruled on the precise issue of whether there was a right to a jury trial in post-trial contempt proceedings, where the sentences imposed for the acts of contempt aggregated to more than six months in jail.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  at 512-13.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The Court looked at the sentences actually imposed by the court in the contempt proceedings, and found that:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
the trial judge not only imposed a separate sentence for each contempt but also determined that the individual sentences were to run consecutively rathe
r than concurrently, a ruling which necessarily extended the prison term to be served beyond that allowable for a petty criminal offense. 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  at 516.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The Court then held:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \'93
In terms of the sentence imposed, which was obviously several times more than six months, each contemnor was tried for what was equivalent to a serious offense and was entitled to a jury trial.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  at 517.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [25]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Benjamin urges this court to follow }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Codispoti}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  and conclude that, because he faced the potential of more than sixty days\rquote  confinement, he is entitled to a jury trial pursuant to 7 GCA \'a7 22104.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Indeed, the First Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Codispoti}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  as holding that \'93a contemnor must be prov
ided the option of a jury trial on contempt charges when those charges are heard after the conclusion of the trial from which the charges arose, if the defendant may be subject to consecutive sentences cumulating in excess of six months upon conviction on
 those charges.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 United States v. Pina}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 844 F.2d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 1988).
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Pina}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
, the sentences imposed at the defendant\rquote s first two contempt hearings did not trigger the right to a jury trial, but the sentence at the third contempt hearing \'93exceed[ed] six months and appellant was not given the option of a jury trial, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Codispoti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  requires that we set aside these convictions and remand for jury trial.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [26]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Yet, even with the Court\rquote s holding in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Codispoti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , the concept of aggregating petty misdemeanor offenses to afford the defendant a jury trial was followed by some courts,}{
\cs32\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s31\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\super\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 \chftn }{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  The Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeals initially followed }{
\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Codispoti}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 .  In }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 United States v. Coppins}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
, 953 F.2d 86, 90 (4th Cir. 1991), the Fourth Circuit stated that \'93there is no apparent reason why the Court\rquote s holding in }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Codispoti . . .}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
 that consecutive sentences of imprisonment actually imposed for a series of contempts committed during a single trial should be aggregated for this purpose should not apply also to 
require aggregation of any maximum sentences authorized by statute . . . .\'94  The Seventh Circuit similarly stated that }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Codispoti}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  \'93
impels us to hold that the district court exceeded its summary contempt powers in imposing a one year contempt sentence.\'94 }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  United States v. Prewitt}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
, 553 F.2d 1082, 1089 (7th Cir. 1977).  In }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Rife v. Godbehere}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
, 814 F.2d 563, 565 (9th Cir. 1987), the Ninth Circuit found that a defendant had the right to a jury trial when the trial judge had discretion, in cases involving mul
tiple petty offense, to impose a sentence of more than six months by ordering consecutive sentences.  Finally, the Tenth Circuit held that a defendant was entitled to a jury trial \'93
only if he is actually threatened at the commencement of trial with an aggregate potential penalty of greater than six months\rquote  imprisonment.\'94  }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 United States v. Bencheck}{
\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 , 926 F.2d 1512, 1518 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Haar v. Hanrahan}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 , 708 F.2d 1547, 1553 (10th Cir. 1983)). }}}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  but it was not universally adopted.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Two circuits, post-}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Codispoti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
, did not aggregate multiple petty offenses, holding instead that a defendant was entitled to a jury only for serious offenses.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
United States v. Brown}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 71 F.3d 845, 847 (11th Cir. 1996); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 United States v. Lewis}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 65 F.3d 252, 254 (2d Cir. 1995).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 See generally}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  Andrew James McFarland, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Lewis v. United States:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 A Requiem for Aggregation}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
, 46 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1057, 1076-86 (1997) (discussing the petty offense exception to a jury trial and the United States Supreme Court\rquote s cases regarding the aggregation of penalties for a petty offense); Christine E. Pardo, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Multiple Petty Offenses with Serious Penalties: A Case for the Right to Trial by Jury}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
, 23 Fordham Urb. L.J. 895, 905 (1996); Colleen P. Murphy, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The Narrowing of the Entitlement to Criminal Jury Trial}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 1997
 Wis. L. Rev. 133, 159 (1997). }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [27]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab As a result of this split among the federal appellate courts, the Supreme Court directly addressed the issue in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Lewis v. United States}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 518 U.S. 322 (1996).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Lewis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  involved the criminal prosecution of a postal service e
mployee charged with two counts of obstructing mail, a federal offense that carried a maximum prison term of six months.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  at 324.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Although he had requested a jury, the trial court instead granted the government\rquote s request for a bench trial, \'93because she would not, under any circumstances, sentence petitioner to more than six months\rquote  imprisonment.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  at 324.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Departing from the reasoning for aggregation stated in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Codispoti}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  and its progeny, the majority refused to adopt the reasoning of the defendant and reaffirmed the objective standard, articulated in its prior cases \endash 
 that the court determine whether a case is serious or petty by looking at the maximum potential penalty set by the legislature:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [W]e determine whether an offense is serious by looking to t
he judgment of the legislature, primarily as expressed in the maximum authorized term of imprisonment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Here, by setting the maximum authorized prison term at six months, the Legislature categorized the offense of obstructing the mail as petty.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
The fact tha
t the petitioner was charged with two counts of a petty offense does not revise the legislative judgment as to the gravity of that particular offense, nor does it transform the petty offense into a serious one, to which the jury trial right would apply.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Lewis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 518 U.S. at 327.}{\cs32\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\s31\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\super\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 \chftn }{
\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961   Notably, the Court also recognized common law authority indicating that aggregation of multiple petty offenses did not warrant a jury trial.  }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Lewis}{
\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 , 518 U.S. at 327 (\'93We note that there is precedent at common law that a jury trial was not provided to a defendant charged with multiple petty offenses.   See,}{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  e.g.}{
\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 ,}{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  Queen v. Matthews, }{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 10 Mod. 26, 88 Eng. Rep. 609 (Q.B.1712);  }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 King v. Swallow,}{
\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  8 T.R. 285, 101 Eng. Rep. 1392 (K.B.1799).\'94). }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The Court dismissed the defendant\rquote 
s reliance on }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Codispoti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , stating that case was inapposite.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  at 328.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Codispoti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , the \'93
Court was unable to determine the legislature's judgment of the character of that offense, however, because the legislature had not set a specific penalty for criminal contempt.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Where the legislature does not indicate the maximum penalty for a contempt offense, \'93courts use the severity of the penalty actually imposed as the measure of the character of the particular offense.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838 
 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 In }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Lewis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , it was}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15621603\charrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 undisputed that the offense of obstruction of mail carried a maximum penalty of six months\rquote  confinement. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \'93}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Here, in contrast, we need not look to the punishment actually imposed, because we are able to discern Congress\rquote  judgment of the character of the offense.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [28]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Unlike the offense of contempt in the federal realm, our legislators have set a specific penalty for contempt.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 See}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  18 U.S.C. \'a7 401 (general federal contempt statute).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 According to 7 GCA \'a7 34101(b), a person convicted of contempt is treated as if he or she had committed a petty misdemeanor.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Therefore, like }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Lewis}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  and unlike }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Codispoti}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
, we are able to discern the Guam Legislature\rquote s \'93judgment of the character of the offense\'94 of contempt.}{\cs32\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\s31\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\super\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 \chftn }{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
 We are not persuaded that, because }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Codispoti}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  is more factually analogous to the instant case than }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Lewis}{
\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  is, we should therefore hold that }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Codispoti}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  controls here.  The }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Codispoti }{
\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Court acknowledged that \'93[i]n the context of the post-verdict adjudicati
on of various acts of  contempt, it appears to us that there is posed the very likelihood of arbitrary action that the requirement of jury trial was intended to avoid or alleviate.\'94  418 U.S. at 515.  The Court then quoted with approval its prior hold
ing in }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Bloom}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 , where it stated that \'93
in contempt cases an even more compelling argument can be made for providing a right to jury trial as a protection against the arbitrary exercise of official power.\'94  }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Id.}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
 (quoting}{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  Bloom}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 , 391 U.S. at 201-02).
\par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6379326 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid681084\charrsid7303961 
\par }{\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 T
he danger of the arbitrary exercise of power, in this case, could only arise from the imposition of consecutive sentences of two days for the forty incidents of contempt; in short, if there were an actual likelihood that Benjamin would serve an eighty-day
 sentence for the offense of contempt as a petty misdemeanor.  There is no danger here that the court would impose such a sentence in this case.  The record before us reveals that, based on an agreement that the parties had entered into below, \'93
the Government and the parties stipulated that [Benjamin] would not serve any jail time if he was found in contempt.\'94  ER, p. 237 (Findings & Recommended Order, Jan. 24, 2004).  The stipulation in this case can be analogized to the situation in }{
\i\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 People v. Kriho}{\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 , 996 P.
2d 158, 177 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999), where, before trial, the People filed a document stating that it would not seek a jail sentence in excess of six months.  The trial court treated the document \'93
as an irrevocable stipulation that Kriho could not receive a sentence exceeding six months.\'94  }{\i\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Id.}{\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  at 177.  Based on this document, the Colorado appellate court \'93
reject[ed] Kriho's assertion that she was denied the right to a jury trial.\'94  }{\i\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 Id.}{\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  at 177-78.  }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Lewis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 518 U.S. at 328.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Section 34101(b) clearly provides that contempt is treated as a petty offense.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Where we have a judgment by the legislature that an }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 offense }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 is \'93petty,\'94 we do not look to the potential prison term faced by a }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 particular defendant}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  who is charged with more than one such petty offense.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
The maximum authorized penalty provides an objective indicatio[n] of the seriousness with which society regards the offense, and it is that indication that is used to determine whether a jury trial is required, not the particularities of an individua
l case.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Here, the penalty authorized . . . manifests its judgment that the offense is petty, and the term of imprisonment faced by petitioner by virtue of the second count does not alter that fact.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Lewis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 518}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 U.S. at 328 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Lewis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
, the Court reaffirmed its prior holdings that in cases where the legislature has established the maximum penalty, such penalty is}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
the definitive factor in determining whether an offense is petty and thus does not implicate the right to a jury trial.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
The Court also reaffirmed the converse proposition that in cases where the legislature has not set a maximum penalty (such as federal contempt offenses), it is approp
riate to look at the actual penalties imposed to determine whether an offense is petty or serious and whether there is a right to a jury trial.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 In unpublished opinions, a few federal appellate courts have had occasion to follow }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Lewis }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 and have rejected arguments that petty offense penalties be aggregated. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 See}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  e.g.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 ,}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  United States v. Sherman}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 97 F.3d 1450 (4th Cir. 1996) (unpublished opinion); }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 United States v. Spafford}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , Nos. 96-4102, 96-4205, 1998 WL 427129 (10th Cir. 1998) (unpublished opinion); }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 United States v. Thornton}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , No. 99-30265, 2000 WL 732929, at *1 (9th Cir. 2000) (unpublished opinion).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 State courts are in accord.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 See}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  e.g.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Burgess v. United States}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 680 A.2d 1033 (D.C. 1996); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 People v. Foy}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
, 673 N.E.2d 589 (N.Y. 1996); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 United States v. Sostre Narvaes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 279 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. P.R. 2003); }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 State v. Ford}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 929 P.2d 78, 86 n.4 (Haw. 1996); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Harkins v. State}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 735 So. 2d 317 (Miss. 1999).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Cf. Walls v. Spell}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 722 So. 2d 566 (Miss. 1998) (where the court declined to rely on }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Lewis}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  and instead applied the rule in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Codispoti }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 because \'93
[i]n Mississippi, there is no maximum penalty for the crime of criminal contempt\'94 and therefore, after examining the actual sentence imposed, found reversible error based on the denial of the defendant\rquote s right to a jury trial).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [29]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Here
, the Guam Legislature concluded that the offense of contempt is to be treated as a petty misdemeanor, and thus, set the maximum penalty of imprisonment for this offense at a}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \'93definite term not to exceed sixty (60) days.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 9 GCA \'a7 80.34(b).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Because the Legislature has deemed contempt to be a petty offense, the actual sentence imposed upon Benjamin is irrelevant.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [30]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
Benjamin next asserts that reading all relevant Guam statutes in harmony reveals that the Legislature must have contemplated aggregating sentences for multiple offenses.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 He argues that if contempt pursuant to 7 GCA \'a7
 34102(b) is punishable as a petty misdemeanor, and this court holds that petty misdemeanor sentences cannot be aggregated because the Legislature has deemed these offenses to be petty, then the right to a jury trial provided in 7 GCA \'a7
 34102(f) is rendered meaningless.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Section 34102(f) states, in its entirety:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \'93If the person charged with contempt is entitled to a trial by jury, such trial shall be provided.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 7 GCA \'a7 34102(f).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [31]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab We agree that as a general rule statutes should be constructed \'93so as to avoid rendering superfluous\'94
 the language of the statute.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass\rquote n v. Solimino}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 501 U.S. 104, 112 (1991).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 However, the function of section 34102(f) is not 
to mandate a jury trial under specified conditions; rather, its function is to provide a jury trial when the evolving constitutional law in this area requires it.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 At the time section 34102(f) was enacted, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Lewis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
 had not yet been decided.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 See}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  Guam Pub. L. 20-170:17 (May 15, 1990).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
The right to a jury trial in cases of contempt pursuant to section 34102(b) was still an open question in 1990, and in enacting section 34102(f) the Legislature left the resolution of that question to the courts.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Thu
s, section 34102(f) is not superfluous in that it continues to direct this court to apply constitutional law to the question of whether contempt triggers the right to a jury trial.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Absent a more specific directive from the Legislature, we interpret Benjamin\rquote 
s rights to be no more and no less than what is required under those constitutional provisions incorporated into our law pursuant to 48 U.S.C. \'a7 1421b(u).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 See}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Guam v. Guerrero}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 290 F.3d 1210, 1217-18 (9th Cir. 2002) (\'93[A] territorial court lacks the auth
ority to interpret a federal statute or federal constitutional provision contrary to the interpretation the U.S. Supreme Court has given it.\'94). }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [32]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Supreme Court case law clearly establishes that, where a legislature has deemed by the maximum penalty im
posed, that an offense is a petty offense, there is no right to a trial by jury.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 We hold that the Guam Legislature, in enacting 7 GCA \'a7
 34101(b) and providing that contempt of court pursuant to section 34102(b) be punishable as a petty misdemeanor, contemplated that it was a petty offense.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Therefore, in accordance with United States Supreme Court jurisprudence, we hold that penalties for multiple counts of contempt under section 34102(b) cannot be aggregated, and Benjamin does not have the right to a jury trial.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 B.\tab Whether \'93Fundamental Fairness\'94
 is Grounds for a New Trial}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [33]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
Benjamin next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
He alleges that Carolyn arranged for his arrest in Referee Ingle\rquote s courtroom \'93on trumped up charges that [he] had lied to Referee Ingles\'94 and that such conduct was \'93nothing short of outrageous.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Appellant\rquote s Br., p. 8 (Jan. 10, 2006).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 He also alleges that he sought to have the proceeding before Referee Ingles stayed while he attempted to clear his name on the perjury charge, but that the request was denied.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 He therefore argues that he should be granted a new trial \'93if for no other reason than to provide fundamental fairness.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Appellant\rquote s Br., p. 8 (Jan. 10, 2006).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [34]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Rule 59(a) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure (\'93GRCP\'94) indicates that \'93
[a] new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues . . . in an action tried without a jury, for any of the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the courts of Guam.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 GRCP 59(a) (2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Benjamin argues that the fact that a \'93trial was not fair to the moving party\'94 is grounds for granting a new trial.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Appellant\rquote 
s Br., p. 8 (Jan. 10, 2006).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 We agree.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 However, Benjamin fails to articulate a rule of law upon which we can base a finding that the proceeding below was fundamentally unfair, nor does he cite to any analogous case law.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 He is asking this court, in essence, to find the lower court proceeding to be unfair based on the surrounding circumstances.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [35]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
In order to conduct a meaningful review, the parties must articulate their arguments in a way that allows this court to apply recognized rules of law:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 It is not sufficient for a party \'93
simply to announce a position or assert an error and 
then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.\'94 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Wilson v. Taylor}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 577 N.W.2d 100, 105 (Mich. 1998) (quoting }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Mitcham v. Detroit}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 94 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. 1959)).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Nevertheless, one can infer from Benjamin\rquote s description of the circumstances that he is arguing that Referee Ingles was biased by the perjury arrest and indictment.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Specifically, he appears to be arguing that Ref}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5393419\charrsid5324838 
eree Ingles considered inadmissib}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 le or irrelevant evidence of Benjamin\rquote s character in deciding in Carolyn\rquote s favor.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [36]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Although our Rules of Evidence go to great length to protect juries from exposure to improper evidence, \'93
a judge presiding over a bench trial is presumed to consider only relevant, admissible evidence.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. IMG Exeter Assoc. Ltd. P\rquote ship}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 985 F.2d 553, *4 (4th Cir. 1993) (unpublished opinion); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
see also Tampa Bay Shipbuilding & Repair Co. v. Cedar Shipping Co.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 320 F.3d 1213, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003) (\'93
[I]t is presumed that the . . . judge will rely only upon properly admitted and relevant evidence\'94); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 cf. People v. Miranda}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 1 P.3d 73, 80 (Cal. 2000) (\'93A judge, unlike a jury, is presumed to be able to avoid the risks of prejudice . . . .\'94 (internal quotation marks omitted)).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
To hold otherwise would make bench trials nearly impossible, since a judge would not be able to rule on the admissibility of evidence and at the same time make factual or legal determinations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Referee Ingles was a trained attorney exercising a judicial function analogous to a judge at a bench trail.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 She would have known that mere evidence of an arrest for perjury was irrelevant to the interpretation of the Ca
nadian order or procedural decisions such as whether to grant a stay or a jury trial.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Benjamin does not point to any specific language in the Findings and Recommended Order or the transcripts that demonstrate that Referee Ingles was biased as a result of his arrest.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Indeed, Benjamin does not provide any transcripts of the proceedings at all.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Therefore, because we have no evidence upon which to overcome the presumption that Referee Ingles considered only relevant evidence, the argument that the proceeding was f}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084 undamentally unfair must fail.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 C.\tab Standard of Review }{
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [37]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
Benjamin next argues that the Superior Court erred in failing to conduct a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 de novo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  review of the Referee\rquote 
s findings and recommended disposition of the case. The trial court reviewed the Referee\rquote s Findings and Recommended Order for an abuse of discretion, stating that \'93
the Superior Court should accord deference to the findings of the administrative referee, and only reject such findings and recommendations where such decisions are based on erron
eous conclusions of law or where the record contains no evidence which the referee could have rationally based her decision.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
RA, Tab 155, p. 3 (Decision & Order, July 25, 2005). This is essentially an abuse-of-discretion standard.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The court examined the p
urposes of the Rules for Expedited Process in child support cases, which were \'93to speed up the bureaucratic governmental quagmire\'94 in child support cases and \'93
to elevate the burdens of evidentiary hearings in child support cases on the dockets of the trial judges by transferring and consolidating these matters before an administrative referee.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 RA, Tab 155, p. 3 (Decision & Order, July 25, 2005). The court reasoned that adopting a different standard would be inconsistent with the purpose of establishing the
 Rules for Expedited Process.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [38]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Because neither the Expedited Judicial Process Act, 19 GCA \'a7\'a7
 5501-5504 (2005), nor the Guam Rules for Expedited Process (\'93GREP\'94) indicate what standard the Superior Court should use in reviewing a referee\rquote s findings and conclusions, Carolyn argues that a referee is analogous to a Rule 53 master.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Therefore, the Superior Court should review a referee\rquote s findings for abuse of discretion.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 See}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  GRCP 53(e)(2) (2004) (\'93[T]he court shall accept the master\rquote 
s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.\'94)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Benjamin argues that a referee is not a master, in part because a master is appointed for a specific purpose, while a referee is appointed by the presiding judge of the Superior Court under statutory authority.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [39]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Masters are appointed pursuant to Rule 53(a), which states in relevant part:}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \'93The court on any one case may appoint a master for any specific purpose. As used in these rules, the word \lquote master\rquote 
 includes a referee, an auditor, an examiner, a commissioner, or an assessor.\'94}{\cs32\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\s31\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\super\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 \chftn }{
\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  This language does not appear in the June 1, 2007 version of the GRCP, which no longer defines the word \'93master.\'94}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 GRCP 53(a) (2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 We agree with Benjamin that the definitio
n of a master in Rule 53(a) seems to indicate a case-by-case appointment on specific cases or issues.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
This is not the situation here, where the Child Support Referee is a full-time position of the Superior Court, and is responsible for hearing child support and certain juvenile proceedings.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 One cannot, therefore, equate a child support referee with a master appointed in accordance with Rule 53(a).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [40]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Title 19 GCA \'a7 5501 (2005) governs the expedited judicial process and creates an \'93expedited judicial proc
ess agency . . . administered by one (1) or more referees.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
In describing the functions and duties of a referee, the statute indicates only that they are \'93[u]nder the authority of the Superior Court.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 19 GCA \'a7 5503 (2005). No mention is made of how a refer
ee is to be supervised by the Superior Court or the exact nature of their relationship. Some courts describe the trial court as being in the position of an intermediate appeals court with regard to the court\rquote s relationship to the referee.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 See}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
 e.g. Sylvester v. Vitagliano}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 2002 ME 141, \'b6 9, 804 A.2d 391, 393 (finding the district court \'93properly acted in an appellate capacity\'94 in reviewing a referee\rquote 
s child support order.).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Other jurisdictions, such as Ohio, view the relationship between a trial court and t
he referee more pragmatically, requiring only that the trial court make an effort to review the referee\rquote s findings.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Inman v. Inman}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 655 N.E.2d 199, 201 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (\'93The trial court does not sit in the position of a reviewing court when reviewing the referee's report; rather, the trial court must conduct a }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 de novo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  review of the facts and conclusions contained in the report.\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Although a trial court is not required to provide a written analysis of every contested issue, they are required to do more than simply \'93rubber stamp\'94 the referee\rquote s report.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [41]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
Clearly the Legislature created the position of family court referee for the purpose of expediting the process of determining child support. 19 GCA \'a7 5502 (2005) (stating that the principal purpose of the division is to provide \'93
a speedy and efficient legal process in child support cases\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
If the Superior Court were required to conduct a full appellate review of the referee\rquote s findings every time an objection was raised under GREP Rule 7.1, the process could hardly be called expeditious.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Moreover, Rule 6.7 only allows the Superior Court ten days to reject a referee\rquote s findings before they are automatically \'93
adopted by the Court without}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 signature.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 GREP 6.7.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Ten days is not sufficient time to conduct a full appellate review.}
{\cs32\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s31\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\super\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 \chftn }{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
 Benjamin argues that the limited time frame of GREP 6.7 does not allow enough time to order transcripts that would be necessary for an abuse-of-discretion review.  We agree, but also note that the rule does not allow enough time for a full, written }{
\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 de novo}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  review either.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
We therefore adopt the pragmatic approach and require only that the trial court make a good faith effort to supervise the referee and correct any obvious errors. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [42]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
Although in an ideal world the trial judge would have the time and resources to make a full written review of every objection, the reality is that a Superior Court judge must at times rely on the competency and experience of his or her assisting referee.}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 If a judge is sufficiently confident in the findings of the referee, he or she may simply accept the referee\rquote 
s conclusions with minimal comment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 However, we caution that no supervision at all is also contrary to the intent of the statute.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Cf.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  19 GCA \'a7 5503 (referees are \'93
[u]nder the authority of the Superior Court\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Referees\rquote 
 reports that are summarily converted into judgments without any evidence of review of Rule 7.1 objections may compel this court to remand for proper review.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [43]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab In the present case, 
the referee determined that the C$343,000 of Cell-Loc stock was transferred to Carolyn as a division of marital assets rather than for the purpose of meeting Benjamin\rquote 
s support obligations. As such, it was an interpretation of a Canadian judgment, which is a question of law requiring }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 de novo }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 review on appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
See State ex rel. Div. of Child Support Enforcement v. Hill}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 53 S.W.3d 137, 141 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001) (finding that the interpretation of a paternity judgment was a question of law); }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Stokes v. Polley}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 37 P.3d 1211, 1213 (Wash. 2001) (\'93
Interpreting a dissolution decree involves a question of law reviewed de novo.\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Had the Superior Court functioned as an appeals court in reviewing the referee\rquote s conclusions, it would have been error to apply an abuse of discretion standard to this issue.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Benjamin\rquote 
s assignment of error on this point, however, is irrelevant in light of our holding herein that we do not require full review by a Superior Court of every objection considered by a referee, and because we generally do not remand questions of law.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
When the Superior Court approves or modifies the findings of a referee, and converts the entire matter into a judgment, the opinions of the judge and referee merge into a single judgment which is then reviewable in its enti
rety by this court. We therefore take note of Benjamin\rquote s objection to the lower court\rquote s interpretation of the Canadian judgment, and review the interpretation }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 de novo}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 D.\tab Whether Benjamin can be Held in Contempt}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [44]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab As we have stated in prior opinions, we review lower court findings of contempt for abuse of discretion:}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 We review the trial court\rquote 
s findings of contempt for an abuse of discretion.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
In reviewing a contempt judgment, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. If the evidence and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom support the trial court's decision, that decision stands.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Rodriguez v. Rodriguez}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 2003 Guam 8 \'b6 14 (citations and quotation marks omitted).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Neither the Referee nor the trial court cited the test we articulated regarding contempt.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \'93The elements of contempt are generally: \lquote 1) a valid order, 2) knowledge of the order, 3) ability to comply with the order, and 4) willful failure to comply with the order.\rquote 
\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Rodriguez}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 2003 Guam 8 \'b6 15 (quoting }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 In re Ivey}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 447, 451 (Ct. App. 2000)).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Benjamin argues that no finding was made with regard to his ability to comply with the support order and that he did not willfully fail to comply because he assumed that the transfer of the 30
01497 Cell-Loc shares was to be credited to his support obligations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 We address each of these arguments in turn.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-1440\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 1.\tab Benjamin\rquote s Ability to Pay}{
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [45]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
Benjamin challenges the lower court\rquote s findings regarding his ability to pay because it did not make a specific finding in this respect.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 We stated in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Rodriguez}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  that}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \'93\lquote where the order is a family law order for payment of support or attorney fees, and the family law court has already determined
 the alleged contemner\rquote s ability to pay the underlying order, ability to comply with the order is not an element of the contempt.\rquote }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Instead, the inability to pay is an affirmative defense.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  \'b6 15 (quoting }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 In re Ivey}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 447, 451 (Ct. App. 2000)).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Contrary to his assertion that the court must show he has the ability to pay, Benjamin carries the burden of showing he does }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 not}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  have the ability to pay.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [46]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Justice Scanlan\rquote s April 6, 2000 Decision recognized that, as a partner in a medical par
tnership with his brother, Benjamin had earned \'93in recent years . . . about [C]$400,000.00 per year, less expenses.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
RA, Tab 1, p. 16 (Decision, Apr. 6, 2000).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Justice Scanlan concluded:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \'93It is not at all unreasonable in the circumstances of this case, bas
ed on the evidence that I have before me, to accept the position as urged by the petitioner that the respondent was earning at least [C] [C]$300,000.00 in the practice of radiology.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 RA, Tab 1, p. 16 (Decision, Apr. 6, 2000).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Benjamin could rely on only tw
o documents in the record to demonstrate inability to pay.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
One of the documents is a profit and loss statement for Guam Imaging Consultants/RADS, Inc. (the company he had owned with former partner Nathaniel Berg) which states that the company had a net los
s of $19,348.93 between February 8 through August 15, 2003 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 ER, p. 55 (Profit & Loss Statement, Aug. 15, 2003).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The second document}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
is an Income Tax Examination Changes form filed in January 2004, which states that he had no income in 2001 and an income of $176,895.00 in 2002.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 RA, Tab 114 (Income Tax Examination Changes).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Benjamin offered no other documents relating to his ability to pay in the record before this court.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 These documents do not \'93
convincingly establish\'94 Benjamin\rquote s inability to pay because they do not counter the finding of the Canadian court that Benjamin had access to a very significant fortune.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Rodriguez}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 2003 Guam 8 \'b6 15; RA, Tab 1, p. 25 (Decision, Apr. 6, 2000) (\'93
The spousal maintenance . . . takes into account the substantial assets [Benjamin] now has at his disposal.\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
We note that at the time of the trial, the}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 estimated value of the marital estate was between 17 and 26 million Canadian dollars.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Benjamin provided no evidence that his share of the marital estate has been dissipated or ha
s been otherwise rendered valueless in the interim, and we must therefore assume that he has sufficient assets to cover his monthly support obligations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-1440\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 2.\tab 
Whether Benjamin Should Receive Credit for the Cell-Loc Shares}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [47]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
Benjamin argues that the Ex Parte Order of March 10, 2000 transferred the 3001497 Cell-Loc shares to Carolyn for the purpose of offsetting his child and spousal support obligations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The shares were subsequently liquidated for C$343,000.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 He argues that the 
liquidation value of the shares, combined with his attempt to tender checks for the remainder of what he owes for child support, brings him up to date on his support obligations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 In support of his position, Benjamin points to the language of the March 10, 
2000 Decision accompanying the Ex Parte Order (subsequently memorialized in written form on March 30, 2000) where Justice Scanlan indicated that the shares would be held by Carolyn\rquote s attorneys, who were then directed \'93
to subsequently convey or dispose of those shares as directed by Carolyn . . . at her discretion so as to allow her to start making payments on the maintenance portion of the previous order.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 That will be spousal and child maintenance until we see if we can get this matter straightened out.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 ER, p. 97 (Decision, Mar. 30, 2000).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
The Ex Parte Order itself makes no mention of the purpose for transferring the 3001497 Cell-Loc shares in trust for Carolyn.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [48]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Benjamin addresses this apparent discrepancy by arguing that the Decision created a trust 
for the purpose of meeting Benjamin\rquote s support obligations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
He argues that purpose must be presumed in the Ex Parte Order as well, since the case law clearly indicates that a valid trust can only be created if it is given a purpose.}{\cs32\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \chftn 
{\footnote \pard\plain \s31\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\super\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 \chftn }{
\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  The Ex Parte Order of March 10, 2000 transferred the 3001497 Cell-Loc stock to \'93MacIntosh, MacDonnell & MacDonald in Trust.\'94
  ER, p. 107 (Ex Parte Order, Mar. 20, 2000).  The Ex Parte Order also identifies MacIntosh, MacDonnell & MacDonald as Carolyn\rquote s solicitors.  It seems likely that the \'93trust\'94
 in which the Cell-Loc stocks were held was one which has existed since the founding of the law firm for the purpose of transferring property to clients in a convenient and transparent manner.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 We find this argument to be more technical
 than substantive, and direct our attention instead to the real issue in this case, that is, whether Benjamin should be given credit for some or all of the value of the Cell-Loc shares with regard to his child and spousal support obligations.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 This determination requires a construction of the various Canadian orders and judgments, which is usually a question of law.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Hill}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 53 S.W.3d at 141.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [49]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab In support of Benjamin\rquote 
s interpretation, we note that none of the written memorializations of the March 1, 2000 oral decision specifically mention the 13,500 shares of Cell-Loc stock held in the name of Nova Scotia Limited 3001497.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 One cannot attribute the oversight to lack of detail.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The April 6 Decision and the two Corollary Relief Judgments all specifically transfe
r 43,000 shares of Cell-Loc stock held by Nova Scotia Limited 3001495 (a slightly different numbering) to Carolyn as her share of marital assets.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 A reasonable interpretation for the failure to include the 3001497 Cell-Loc shares in the marital estate is th
at Justice Scanlan understood that the court had already transferred those shares outright for the purpose of providing child and spousal support to Carolyn.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 This interpretation is consistent with the wording of the March 10, 2000 Decision.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Perhaps the reason that the purpose of the transfer was not mentioned in the Ex Parte Order was that the intended audience was the broker currently holding the 3001497 Cell-Loc shares.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 It is not uncommon for courts issuing orders to banks or brokerage houses to omit the 
purpose of the transfer and simply order that such transfer take place.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [50]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
Carolyn points to the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the 3001497 Cell-Loc shares as evidence they were matrimonial assets.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
She notes that the shares were discovered serendipitously, and that at the time of their discovery they were held in the name of Benjamin\rquote s brother, Daniel Hoffman, who subsequently disclaimed any interest in the shares.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The implication, apparently, is that Benjamin knew those shares were subject t
o division as marital property and therefore attempted to hide them from Carolyn.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
She also points to the 50% interest in the Cell-Loc shares provided to her through the two Corollary Relief Judgments and the April 6, 2000 Decision.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Carolyn, like Referee Ingles, incorrectly equates the 3001497 Cell-Loc shares with different Cell-Loc shares mentioned in the Corollary Relief Judgments and April 6 Decision.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 See}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  Appellee\rquote 
s Br., p. 25 (Feb. 9, 2006); ER, p. 239 (Findings & Recommended Order, Jan. 26, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Finally, with regard to Benjamin\rquote 
s trust theory, she argues that the trust \'93was nothing more . . . than a method to affect the transfer of marital property to Lamb through her attorneys.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Appellee\rquote s Br., p. 26.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Although we do not necessarily agree that the
 3001497 Cell-Loc shares should be categorized as marital property, we agree that the trust was nothing more than a convenient method of transferring property.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Cf. S.E.C. v. Capital Consultants, LLC}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 397 F.3d 733, 747 (9th Cir. 2005) (\'93All garden-variety s
tock brokerage firms . . . hold equities in trust for their clients, and holding the stock in street name is little more than an administrative convenience.\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [51]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab We are inclined to agree with Benjamin that he should be given credit for the liquidation 
value of the 3001497 Cell-Loc shares.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
A plain reading of the March 10, 2000 Decision suggests that Justice Scanlan intended the shares to be liquidated and then used as a fund to pay Benjamin\rquote s child and spousal support obligations beginning in March of 2000.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 However, the oral nature of the Decision has resulted in certain ambiguities}{
\cs32\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s31\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\super\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 \chftn }{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  For example, it is often difficult to discern the prior event to which the court is referring:
\par }\pard\plain \qj \li720\ri720\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6379326 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\ul\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 MS. MACNEIL:}{
\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  [Y]ou recall that Mr. Justice Cacchione made an order for $100,000.00 as . . . a lump sum in November . . .
\par }{\ul\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 THE COURT:}{\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  That order [is] superseded as far as I'm concerned.
\par }{\ul\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 MS. MACNEIL:}{\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  By this order?
\par }{\ul\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 THE COURT:}{\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  Yes
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid10240164 {\ul\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 MS. MACNEIL:}{\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
 Well then my concern is that if she's going to pay him for one-half of the first and second mo
rtgages and one-half of the value of the furniture and art work and the rest, she has not received that money which the Court intended that she would receive by way of spousal and child support in order to pay the mortgage . . .
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6379326 {\ul\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 THE COURT:}{\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
 No but you recall that we dealt with the issue of spousal and child support by saying that the assets she was able to liquidate have basically provided for the spousal and child support. . . 
\par }{\ul\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 MS. MACNEIL:}{\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  That's right.
\par }{\ul\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 THE COURT:}{\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  . . . to-date, and I asked if there was any retroactivity and you said no.
\par }{\ul\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 MS. MACNEIL:}{\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  Nope.  We weren\rquote t asking for it.  
\par }{\ul\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 THE COURT:}{\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  So as regards the other $100,000.00 lump sum payment which was not made, had it been made I would have factored it into the asset division.  It was
 not paid as far as I was aware and this order supersedes it and . . . I [have] . . . basically taken a still photo based on the financial statements and said this is the division, dealt with the retroactive maintenance payment through the assets that wer
e already liquidated and said those were on his account not on her account because he should have been paying it . . . and move it on forward.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6379326 {\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
ER, pp. 103-04 (Decision, Mar. 30, 2000).  Justice Scanlan is likely referring to a prior order that liquidated some assets to provide for Carolyn\rquote s support before the final division of assets on March 1, 2000.  However, the language is ambiguous.}
}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  that have proven difficult to resolve based on the record before us.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Under the circumstances, justice would be better served by allowing the parties to present arguments as to the interpretation of the March 10, 2000 Decision or petition the Canadian court for clarification.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838 
 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 We therefore remand the question of how much credit Benjamin should get for the 3004197 Cell-Loc shares to the lower court for a determination consistent with this opinion. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-1440\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 3.\tab Whether Benjamin\rquote 
s Interpretation Prevents a Finding of Contempt}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [52]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
When a support order might be interpreted in multiple ways, courts must consider whether a party\rquote s interpretation rises to the level of \'93willful failure to comply with the order.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Rodriguez}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 2003 Guam 8 \'b6 15.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Sablosky v. Sablosky}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
, the Connecticut Supreme Court found the defendant to be in contempt for failing to pay a portion of his children\rquote s college tuition even though the phrase}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13512887\charrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \'93undergraduate college student\'94 was ambiguous.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
784 A.2d 890, 892-93 (Conn. 2001).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The court concluded that \'93
an ambiguity in the terms of a judgment does not, as a matter of law, preclude a finding of contempt for the wilful failure to comply with the judgment.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
This is particularly true where a party uses an ambiguity as an excuse for entirely ignoring their support obligations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Ex parte Acker}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 949 S.W.2d 314, 319 (Tex. 1997).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The policy reason that contempt can someti
mes be appropriate in such cases is that parties should be encouraged to petition the court to clarify any ambiguities rather than resort to self help.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Sablosky}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 784 A.2d at 896.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 On the other hand, a good faith belief that a party\rquote s interpretation of the support order is correct may prevent a finding of wilfulness for purposes of establishing contempt.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  at 894; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 see also Blackwell v. Fulgum}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
, 652 S.E.2d 427, 430-31 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007) (finding that ex-wife was not in contempt was appropriate where she had a good faith belief that her support payments should be reduced upon the emancipation of her daughter); }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Riddick v. Riddick}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 906 So. 2d 813, 826 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (ex-husband\rquote 
s good faith belief that he could delay tuition payments until the court clarified his obligations in light of his ex-wife\rquote s breach of the marital agreement prevented a finding of contempt).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [53]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab In the instant case, Benjamin did not completely ignore his child support obligations.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 As a result of the Ex Parte Order, C$343,000 was 
transferred to Carolyn, which Benjamin interpreted to be for the purpose of child and spousal support.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
As soon as his accumulated support obligations approximated the liquidated value of the 3001497 Cell-Loc shares, he attempted to tender checks}{\cs32\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\s31\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\super\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 \chftn }{
\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  We note with disapproval Benjamin\rquote s attempt to add a \'93waiver\'94 to the checks and would discourage him from any future attempts to make his support payments conditional.}}}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  to Carolyn and stay current with his child support obligations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
We hold that there is sufficient merit to Benjamin\rquote s interpretation of the Canadian child-support order to allow a finding of good faith on his part.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Moreover, Benjamin\rquote s good faith interpretation of the Canadian child-support order cannot be construed as \'93willful failure to comply with the order.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Rodriguez}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 2003 Guam 8 \'b6 15.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 For that reason, the lower court abused its discretion in finding Benjamin in contempt with respect to his child support obligations.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [54]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
With respect to spousal support, the April 6 written Decision makes the C$10,000 spousal support payments conditional upon a final division of the marital property, stating in relevant part that payments will continue \'93
until such time as [Carolyn] receives her share of the division of matrimonial property.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 RA, Tab 1, p. 24 (Decision, Apr. 6, 2000).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The record indicates that Carolyn\rquote 
s share of the matrimonial assets had not been transferred to her at the time of the expedited hearing.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 In Carolyn\rquote s June 25, 
2003 affidavit, she alleges that the only significant marital assets she has been able to recover, besides \'93personal effects and household furnishings,\'94 are the 3004197 Cell-Loc shares and a time share property worth C$15,000.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 ER, pp. 19-20 (Affidavit, June 25, 2003).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Benjamin\rquote s response, as discussed in Referee Ingle\rquote s January 26, 2004 Findings and Recommended Order, is that \'93
transfer of one-half of the matrimonial property is impossible because the shares do not exist.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 ER, p. 238 (Findings & Recommended 
Order, Jan. 26, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 In addition, Benjamin contends \'93
that all the shares have been transferred or sold or that they are in a Brimstone Trust, but he does not know how much is in the trust.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
ER, p. 238 (Findings & Recommended Order, Jan. 26, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Benjam
in never contends, either in the Record on Appeal or in his briefs submitted to this court, that the Referee was in error in finding that the matrimonial assets have not been transferred according to the dictates of the April 6, 2000 Decision or the two C
orollary Relief Judgments.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 As a result, we find that the C$10,000 monthly spousal support order was still in effect as of September of 2003.}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [55]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Even if given credit}{\cs32\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \chftn {\footnote 
\pard\plain \s31\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\super\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 \chftn }{
\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  In the court below, Benjamin made the argument that he should be given credit for the March 1, 2000 market value of the 3001497 Cell-Loc shares, or approximately C$960,000.  }{\i\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961 
See}{\fs24\insrsid16064611\charrsid7303961  ER, p. 16 (Decl. of Benjamin R. Hoffman, Aug. 19, 2003).  That amount would be more than sufficient to cover all of his support obligations until 2006.  For whatever
 reason, the issue was not brought up again on appeal.   Without reaching the merits, we note that a \'93good faith\'94
 interpretation of a support order should, at a minimum, be worthy of argument before this court if it is to be used as a defense to contempt.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
 for the liquidation value of the 3001497 Cell-Loc stocks, Benjamin would only be current with respect to both his child and spousal support obligations through about May of 2002.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Thereafter, he attempted to meet his child support obligations, but failed to make any spousal support payments.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Here, Benjamin provides no \'93good faith\'94 argument as to why he failed to meet his spousal support obligations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Instead, one can reasonably infer from the record that Benjamin never had any intention of voluntarily paying spousal support to Carolyn.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 As a result, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Benjamin willfully failed to meet his spousal support obligations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 E.\tab Failure to Provide a Transcript}{
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [56]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
Finally, Carolyn argues that the appeal should be dismissed because Benjamin failed to provide transcripts.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
She asserts that because Benjamin essentially argues the Referee\rquote s findings were unsupported by evidence, Rule 7(b)(2) (2004) of the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure require that he include a transcript in the appeal.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Rule 7(b) states, in relevant part:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \'93If the Appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, he shall incl
ude in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding or conclusion. If errors of law are raised by Appellant, all relevant sections of the record shall be transcribed.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Nevertheless, it is the Appellant\rquote s decision to include transcripts, as Rule 7(b)(1) places the burden on the Appellant to make this determination to order transcripts that \'93
he deems necessary for inclusion in the record.\'94 Guam R. App. P. 7(b)(1) (2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [57]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab The general rule is that \'93
an appellate court has no alternative but to dismiss an appeal if the absence of the transcript precludes meaningful review.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Birchler v. Gell Co.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 88 F.3d 518, 520 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Fisher v. Krajewski}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 873 F.2d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir. 1989)); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 , 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir. 1991) (\'93[F]ailure to provide relevant portions of a transcript may require dismissal of the appeal.\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Dismissal does not automatically follow from failure to provide a transcript, however.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Rather, this court must determine whether a meaningful review is possible absent the relevant portions of the transcript.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 An assignment of a procedural error during trial, for example, could not be reviewed in a meaningful way without reference to the trial court transcripts.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Other issues may be reviewable yet still dismissed on the merits because their resolution depends upon evidence that could have been gleaned from the transcripts.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 In the latter case, failure to provide evidence directly from the transcripts is simply interpreted by this court as absence of the evidence itself.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [58]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab 
Carolyn contends that three of the issues raised by Benjamin must be summarily dismissed because Benjamin has failed to provide transcripts.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
The first issue is whether it was \'93fundamentally unfair\'94 to arrest Benjamin in court and whether that prejudiced the Referee.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
As we have already discussed, judges are presumed to consider only relevant evidence, and Benjamin\rquote s failure to provide transcript evidence countering this presumption is dispositive of that issue.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 The second issue is whether the Referee should have given Benjamin credit for the 3001497 Cell-Loc stock in meeting his support obligations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 We suspect that even the transcripts would have been of little assistance in resolving this issue, and note that either party could have provided them on appeal.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
As we have already discussed, the prudent course of action under these circumstances would be to remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [59]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab The third issue is wheth
er the lower court failed to make a finding that Benjamin has a present ability to meet his child support payments.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Referee Ingles specifically found that \'93Justice Scanlan determined that the Defendant had the ability to comply with the terms of the Amended Judgment\'94 and that \'93[n]o evidence before this Court has been presented to the contrary.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 ER, p. 240 (Findings & Recommended Order, Jan. 26, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 A party\rquote s ability to pay is not a procedural question; rather, it is a presumption that Benjamin was required to rebut with affirmative evidence to the contrary.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 If that evidence is contained only in the transcripts, we would have to agree with Carolyn that he should have provided them.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 However, failure to do so does not mean that this court must dismiss his claim outright.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Instead, we conduct a meaningful review of the issue by noting that there is insufficient evidence to find that Benjamin has no present ability to meet his support obligations.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12211412 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 V.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5324838 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [60]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab In summary, we first hold that a person convicted of contempt as a petty misdemeanor under 7 GCA \'a7
 34102(b) cannot aggregate penalties of multiple counts of contempt and does not have the right to a jury trial.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Furthermore, we do not have a \'93definite and firm conviction the trial court committed clear error of judgment\'94 in denying Benjamin\rquote s motion for a new trial, and affirm its denial of his motion.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838 
 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 J.J. Moving Servs., }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 1998 Guam 19 \'b6 14.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Next, we reject Benjamin\rquote s contention that the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 de novo}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  standard should apply to the review of a referee\rquote s findings, and further conclude that a trial court does not sit as an intermediate appellate court with respect to a referee.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 Instead, the trial court need only make a good faith effort to supervise the referee and correct any obvious errors.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 We are sympathetic with Benjamin\rquote 
s argument that he should be given credit for the liquidation value of the 3001497 Cell-Loc stocks, but his willful failure to provide spousal support once those funds were depleted compels this court to affirm the lower court\rquote s contempt order.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 We remand the determination of Benjamin\rquote 
s total arrearages to the lower court and instruct that the calculation be made in a manner consistent with this opinion.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5324838  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
Finally, we reject the argument that the case be dismissed for the failure to order transcripts, as a meaningful review can be conducted nonetheless.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid5324838 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 [61]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 \tab Accordingly, the trial court is }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 AFFIRMED}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838  in part and }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 REMANDED}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4069760\charrsid5324838 
 in part for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
\par }{\field\flddirty{\*\fldinst {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15621603\charrsid5324838  SEQ CHAPTER \\h \\r 1}}{\fldrslt }}\sectd \psz1\sbknone\linex0\headery1008\footery288\endnhere\titlepg\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid8071769\sftnbj {
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15621603\charrsid5324838 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid681084 ROBERT J. TORRES
\par Associate Justice
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12211412 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid681084 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid681084 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15621603\charrsid681084 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid681084\charrsid681084 Chief Justice}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14501000\charrsid681084 
\par }}