Rimas Eugenio v. Eugenio

Background

Sheryl May Rimas Eugenio and Johnny Benson Eugenio became engaged while living in the Philippines. In October 2016, Mr. Eugenio filed a visa petition for Ms. Rimas and her daughter. They entered the United States in April 2017, and Ms. Rimas and Mr. Eugenio married within 90 days. Ms. Rimas later applied for residency, and Mr. Eugenio signed Affidavits of Support for both Ms. Rimas and her daughter.

The affidavits required Mr. Eugenio to provide whatever support was necessary to maintain the sponsored immigrants at an annual income of at least 125% of the federal poverty guidelines. Ms. Rimas and her daughter became lawful permanent residents in June 2019. After Ms. Rimas moved out of the shared home in July 2022, a California court ordered Mr. Eugenio to pay her $1,284 per month in spousal support. Their divorce was finalized in February 2023. Ms. Rimas then filed this federal lawsuit, alleging that Mr. Eugenio had failed to meet his separate support obligations under the affidavits.

Mr. Eugenio represented himself. In opposing summary judgment, he argued that the amount owed should be reduced based on alimony, support from Ms. Rimas’ parents, food stamps, gifts, and Ms. Rimas’ alleged failure to seek employment.

Legal standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Support obligation and household size

The court found no genuine dispute that Mr. Eugenio signed the affidavits and remained obligated to support a household of two—Ms. Rimas and her daughter—at 125% of the federal poverty guidelines. The court relied on the affidavit for Ms. Rimas’ daughter, which identified Ms. Rimas as the principal immigrant and her daughter as a family member, as well as Mr. Eugenio’s admission in his answer that Ms. Rimas’ household size was two for purposes of the support obligation.

The court explained that the support obligation ends only upon one of five listed events: the immigrant becomes a U.S. citizen; works or receives credit for 40 qualifying quarters under the Social Security Act; loses lawful-permanent-resident status and leaves the United States; becomes covered by a new Affidavit of Support; or dies. The court found that none of those events had occurred.

Failure to seek employment

The court rejected Mr. Eugenio’s defense that Ms. Rimas failed to reduce her losses by seeking employment or trying to become a U.S. citizen. The court concluded that traditional contract defenses, including the duty to reduce damages, cannot be used to avoid support obligations created by an Affidavit of Support. It held that Ms. Rimas’ alleged failure to seek or obtain employment was not a basis to terminate or reduce Mr. Eugenio’s support obligation.

Income calculations

The court considered whether several forms of financial support should count as Ms. Rimas’ income when determining whether she reached 125% of the federal poverty guidelines for a household of two.

- Alimony: The parties agreed that Mr. Eugenio’s $1,284 monthly alimony payments could be treated as income and offset the support amount. - Support from Ms. Rimas’ parents: The court ruled that her parents’ income and their payments for rent or household expenses could not be counted. Because the parents were not sponsored immigrants, their income had to be disregarded under the controlling appellate decision discussed by the court. - Food stamps: The court ruled that means-tested food benefits counted as income even though they were not taxable income. Ms. Rimas’ damages therefore had to be reduced by $136 for each month she received those benefits. - Gifts: The court declined to decide generally when gifts might count as income. It found that Mr. Eugenio had not provided enough facts or values about the alleged gifts to create a genuine dispute, so the claimed gifts did not offset the support obligation.

After crediting alimony and food stamps, and considering the other income identified in the record, the court found that Ms. Rimas’ income remained below 125% of the applicable federal poverty guidelines for a household of two. The court therefore held that Mr. Eugenio was breaching his continuing financial obligation.

Damages and continuing support

The court granted Ms. Rimas’ motion for summary judgment. It awarded back support equal to the difference between her income—including alimony and food stamps—and 125% of the federal poverty guidelines for a household of two, covering July 2022 through the present. Because her motion calculated damages only through February 2024, and the court could not assume that the parties’ financial circumstances had remained unchanged, the exact amount of back support was left for calculation after the order.

The court also ordered continuing support. Mr. Eugenio must provide the income needed to maintain Ms. Rimas’ household of two at 125% of the applicable federal poverty guidelines until one of the listed terminating events occurs.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. It directed Ms. Rimas to file a proposed judgment within seven days stating the amount of back support presently due and showing the calculations. The court also stated that any request for attorney’s fees must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54.