Bank of Guam v. Puana

Superior Court of Guam

Bank of Guam v. Puana

Superior Court of Guam·Decided January 11, 2022·No. CV0361-21·Unknown

Opinion

4, 4 •:FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2022 JAN I PH 14:09 CLERK Of COURT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

BANK OF GUAM, CIVIL CASE NO. CV0361-21

Plaintiff,

vs. DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION BENJAMIN K. PUANA, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant.

This matter is before the Honorable Dana A. Gutierrez based on Plaintiff Bank of Guam’s

(“Plaintiff’) Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Benjamin K. Puana

(“Defendant”) filed on August 3, 2021. Plaintiff is represented by Attorney Terrence M. Brooks

and Defendant is represented by Attorney Vanessa L. Williams. Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the

Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam, the Court determined that oral argument was

unnecessary and took the matter under advisement based on the pleadings. Afier reviewing the

record and relevant law, the Court finds that Defendant failed to provide specific facts indicating

a genuine issue for trial. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore GRANTED.

UNDISPUTED FACTS

Plaintiff holds a Note executed by Defendant. Deci. of Christopher J. Adawag, at ¶ 3 II) (I, DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CV0361-21; Bank of Guam v. Benjamin K. Puana

(Aug. 3, 2021) (hereinafter “Adawag Decl.”); Deft.’s Answer, at ¶ 2 (June 30, 2021) (admitting

that Plaintiff holds the Note that Defendant executed). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to

make payments on the account for the principal balance, $18,677.64; accrued interest, $1,335.33;

plus prejudgment interest at a rate of 8.5% from September 18, 2020 until the date of judgment;

plus postjudgment interest on the judgment amount at the prevailing judgment interest rate of 6%

per annum; and reasonable attorneys’ fees in an amount not to exceed 15% of the total sum due.

Mot., at 5 (Aug. 3, 2021); Adawag Dccl., at ¶J 8-9. Defendant admits that he failed to make the

required payments but asserts that he is without sufficient knowledge of the balance due. Deft. ‘s

Answer ¶ 3. However, Defendant offers no alternative calculations as to the amount due and no

opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. See id.

DISCUSSION

Under Rule 56(c) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure (“GRCP”), summary judgment

is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and 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 of material fact. GRCP 5 6(c).

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

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

response must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for thai. 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

2 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CV0361-21, Bank of Guam v. Benjamin K Puana

bear the burden of proof at trial,” then summary judgment is required. 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.

Ftores, 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.

Pac. fin. Corp., 2000 Guam 27 ¶9 (citing John Hancock Mutual Lf Ins. Co. v. Amerford Int’l

Corp., 22 F.3d 458, 461 (2d Cir. 1994)). Contract language is unambiguous when it has “a

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

[contractJ itself, and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion.”

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

effect to the mutual intention of the parties . . . at the time of contracting.” Edwards, 2000

Guam 27 ¶ 9 (citing 18 GCA § 87102).

Here, it is undisputed that Defendant executed the Note and that he failed to make the

required payments. Adawag Decl., at ¶ 3-8; Deft’s Answer, at ¶ 2-3. Because failing to make

payments required by the Note constitutes “Payment Default,” according to the Note’s

“Default” provision, Plaintiff is permitted to declare the immediate payment of the entire unpaid

principal balance under the Note and all accrued unpaid interest due. Adawag Dccl.,

Attachment.’ Accordingly, upon acceleration, Defendant was obligated to pay the entire unpaid

principal balance and accrued interest.

‘Plaintiff attached a copy of the Note to the Declaration of Christopher J. Adawag. The copy of the Note is hereinafter cited to as “Attachment.”

3 DECISION ANI) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CV0361-21, Bank of Guam v. Benjamin K Puana

Plaintiff’s evidence supports its calculations and these calculations are undisputed. The

Note indicated the execution date as August 7, 2019, at which time Plaintiff lent Defendant

$20,000.00 at an annual percentage rate of 8.5%. Adawag Deci., Attachment. The payment

schedule required Defendant to make 59 payments of $410.72 and one payment of $411.32 to

Plaintiff commencing on July 10, 2019. Id. Defendant made some payments toward the

principal balance, however, the principal balance due is $18,677.64. Adawag Decl., at ¶ 8.

Because Defendant provides no evidence of alternative calculations to establish an issue of

material fact as to the principal balance owed, the Court finds that at the time Defendant

defaulted, the balance due on the Note was $18,677.64.

As to the issue of interest, the Note’s “Payment” provision provides that Defendant

promised to pay the “principal and all accrued interest not yet paid.” Adawag Dccl.,

Attachment. The interest rate indicated in the Note is 8.5%. Id. Additionally, the “Lender’s

Rights” provision in the Note states that “[ujpon default, Lender may declare the entire unpaid

principal balance under this Note and all accrued unpaid interest immediately due[.J” Id.

Defendant provides no evidence refuting the plain language of the Note; therefore, the Court

fmds no issue of material fact as to Defendant’s obligation to pay the interest accrued prior to

default.

With regard to the additional interest, the Note’s “Interest After Default” provision

provides that “because of [Defendant’s] default, the total sum due under this Note will continue

to accrue interest at the interest rate under this Note.” Id. The interest rate indicated in the Note

is 8.5%. Id. The Plaintiff contends that additional interest accrues until Judgment is entered.

4 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CV0361-21; Bank of Guam v. Benjamin K Puana

Adawag Deci., at ¶ 8. Defendant provides no evidence to refute the additional interest accruing

until Judgment. Accordingly, the Court finds no issue of material fact as to whether Defendant

is obligated to pay the additional interest that accrues on the total sum due upon his default at a

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI