Bank of Guam v. Puana

Opinion

FL LED SU IQR COURT

7fl’i —2 PI : 9 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM CLERK O COURT Superior Court CasNo. CVO6242LQ BANK OF GUAM,

Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

vs.

BENJAMIN K. PUANA,

Defendant.

The Court here considers Plaintiff Bank of Guam’s (“BOG”) Motion for Summary

Judgment on its claims against Defendant Benjamin K. Puana. BOG asserts that Puana failed to

make payments on the account for the principal balance of $14,229.65, accrued interest of

$155.14, plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum from July 1, 2020, and reasonable attorney’s

fees not to exceed 15% of the unpaid balance of $2,168.22. After reviewing the record and

relevant law, the Court finds that Defendant Benjamin K. Puana failed to provide specific facts

indicating a genuine issue for trial. The Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore GRANTED.

I. UNDISPUTED FACTS

It is undisputed that Puana maintains a Visa Charge account (“account”) governed by a

Credit Card Cardholder Agreement (“Agreement”) with BOG. Deci. in Support of Mot. Summ.

J. (“Decl.”) ¶ 6. Puana admits that he failed to make the required payments and that the

Agreement allows BOG to charge interest at the rate of 12% per annum on any unpaid and

overdue balance. Def.’s Answer ¶ 3-4 (Oct. 20, 2020). Moreover, Puana offers no alternative CV0624-20 DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 2

calculations as to the principal balance of $14,229.65 or the accrued interest of $155.14. Decl. ¶

5.

IL LAW AND DISCUSSION

Under GRCP 56(c), summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers

to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with other affidavits, if any, show there is no

genuine issue of material fact that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Summary judgment is proper only where there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.

GRCP 56(c).

When a motion for summary judgment is made, an adverse party may not rest upon

allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading. GRCP 56(e). The adverse party’s

response must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Id. If, after adequate

time for discovery, the non-moving party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the

existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the

burden of proof at trial,” then Rule 56(c) requires entry of summary judgment. Kim v. Hong,

1997 Guam 11 ¶ 8. When deciding a motion for summary judgment, “the court must draw

inferences and view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Bank of

Guam v. flores, 2004 Guam 25 ¶ 7.

Generally, in a contract dispute, a motion for summary judgment may be granted only

where the agreement’s language is unambiguous and conveys a definite meaning. Edwards v.

Fac. Fin. Corp., 2000 Guam 27 ¶ 9; see also John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. Amerford Int’l.

Corp., 22 F.3d 452 (2” Cir. 1994). Contractual language is unambiguous when it has “a

definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception in the purport of the

[contract] itself and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion.” CV0624-20 DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 3

John Hancock Mutual Lfe Ins. Co. 22 F.3d at 461. “A contract must be interpreted as to give

effect to the mutual intentions of the parties at the time of contracting.” Edwards, 2007 Guam

27 ¶ 9 (quoting 18 GCA § 87102).

It is undisputed that Puana maintains an account governed by an Agreement with BOG

and that he failed to make the required payments. Def’s Answer ¶J 3-4. The Agreement’s

“Immediate Repayment of [Puana’s] Full Balance,” provision provides “[Puana] will be in

default, and [BOG] may, ... require immediate payment in full of all amounts outstanding upon

[Puana’s] account ... if [he] fail[sJ to make a payment when it is due....” Since Puana failed to

make the required payments to the account, he is in default, and BOG is permitted to demand

the immediate full payment of all outstanding amounts on the account.

As to the principal balance owed on the account, Puana claims that he is without

sufficient knowledge as to the $14,299.56 figure that BOG alleges he owes. In support of the

amount, BOG submits the declaration of Reanna R. Cruz, the Vice President/Loan Adjustment

Manager for BOG. In her declaration, Crnz authenticates BOG’s calculations and then advises

that, as of July 1, 2020, Puana owes BOG the principal balance of $14,299.65. Deci. ¶ 5. In

contrast, Puana provides no evidence disputing the amount owed. Accordingly, the Court finds

no issue of material fact as to Puana’s obligation to pay the principal balance of$14,299.56.

As to the accrued interest, the plain language of the Agreement’s “Promise to Pay”

provision provides that “[Puana) promise[s] to pay ... the total of any interest charge....” BOG

alleges that Puana owes $155.14, and Cruz ‘s declaration corroborates the amount. Compl. Ex. 1

(Jul. 22, 2020); Decl. ¶ 5. Puana provides no evidence challenging the calculations.

Accordingly, the Court also finds no issue of material fact regarding Puana’s obligation to pay

accrued interest of$155.14. CV0624-20 DECISION MD ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 4

Regarding Puana’s liability on additional interest, Puana admits that he failed to make

the required payments and that the Agreement allows BOG to charge interest at the rate of 12%

per annum on any unpaid and overdue balance. Def’s Answer ¶J 3-4. Moreover, Cruz’s

declaration states that Puana owes BOG interest at the rate of 12% per annum from July 1,

2020. Decl. ¶ 5. The Court is satisfied that no issue of material fact exists as to Puana’s

obligation to pay the additional interest.

As to reasonable attorney fees due, the Agreement’s “Promise to Pay” provision

provides that “[Puana] promise[s] to pay all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s

fees that [BOG] incur[s] in enforcing this agreement.” Since it is undisputed that BOG incurred

legal expenses by initiating the instant case, the Court finds no issue of material fact regarding

Puana’s liability to pay reasonable attorney fees incurred by BOG. furthermore, since

$2,168.22 does not exceed 15% of the unpaid balance, the Court finds that this is a reasonable

request for attorney fees and expenses under the Agreement. Compi. Ex. 1.

The Court finds that Summary Judgment is proper. Puana is obligated to pay the

principal balance of $14,299.65, the accrued interest of $155.14, plus interest at the rate of 12%

per annum from July 1, 2020, and reasonable attorney fees in the amount of $2,168.22.

III. CONCLUSION

F or the above reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of March 2021.

HON. ELYkE M. IRIARTE Judge, Superior Court of Guam Appearing Attorneys: Mark Beggs, The Law Offices of Duncan G. McCully, P.C. for Plaintiff Bank of Guam Vanessa L. Williams, Law Office of Vanessa L. Williams, P.C., for Defendant Benjamin Puana