Borja-Atalig v. Versario

Superior Court of Guam·Decided May 7, 2024·No. CV0692-22·Unknown

Opinion

§;l§_.E;;3 S*J we EEF GU#§;€

1 202~ HAY 28211 PH·tt: -1-7PH HAY 1;:26 26 2 £8!.ERi'<, CLEm, ufi? &Sii§*iT GfJU.RT 3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GU U-~ Y : : : ~ 4

5 5 LISA MARIE MARIE BORJA-ATALIG, 6 Plaintiff, Civil Civil Case Case No. No. CV0692-22 7

8 vs. DECISION AND ORDER RE: 9 MOTION FOR KIRBY VERSARIO, DEFAULT JUDGMENT 10 10 JOHN DOE JOHN DOEINSURANCE INSURANCE CARRIERS CARRIERS NO. no. 1-5, 1-5, and DOES 6-15 11 11 Defendant. 12

13 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 14 his matter This er came beforee the he Honorable Honor a ble John J ohn C.. Terlaje la je on February a r y 26, 2024, for an 15

16 evidentiary hearing regarding a Verified Verified Complaint Complaint for Damages Damages made by Lisa Marie Marie Boil Borja-Atalig

17 ("Plaintiff'). ("Plaintiff'). Attorney Attorney Vanessa Vanessa Williams Williams ("Williams") ("Williams")appeared appearedon on behalf behalf of Plaintiff Defendants of Plaintiff. Defendants 18 Kirby Versario ("Vesario"), John Doe Doe IInsurance Can'iers No. 1-5, and Does No. 6-15 did not Carriers No. not 19 appear, and neither did any counsel on their behalf. 20

21 STIPULATED FACTS

22 1. Plaintiff Plaintifftestified testifiedthat that on on or or about December 18, about December 18, 2021, Plaintiff Plaintiff and Versario 23 allegedly allegedly entered entered into into aa contract contract for for the construction and installation of a home 24 extension extension for Plaintiff by by Versario (the "Contract"). "Contract"). Since Since Versario Versario had already 25 installed installed the two prefab container container units units for for Plaintiff Plaintiff constituting her her then current 26

27 residence, they agreed agreed that that Versaio Versaio would would construct construct and and install the extension.

28 Page l1 of of 113 2. Plaintiff Plaintifftestified testifiedthat thathe theagreement agreementincluded included$29,500 $29,500 as as aa fee fee plus plus an an estimate estimate for 1

2 cost of materials which which was $49,500 $49,500 but was then increased increased to $59,500 (the

3 "Contract Price"). The Contract Price was informally recorded in documents. 4 3. Plaintiff Plaintifftestified testifiedthat thatthe theparties parties allegedly allegedlyagreed agreed that that the the construction construction work under 5 the Contract shall be completed by January 17, 2021, which was later promised by 6

7 January 22, 2021.

8 4. Plaintiff Plaintifftestified testifiedthat thatthe thescope scope of ofthe the work work included included constructing a kitchen, living

9 room, outside bathroom, septic tank, and storage shed. Some of these came in prefab 10 units that had to be installed and connected to to the the existing existing home of Plaintiff Plaintiff in a 11 secure, attractive, and waterproof manner. manner. The The plans, plans, specifications and instructions 12

13 that came with the units became part of their agreement. The parties agreed orally as

14 to specific materials such as tiles and other discretionary materials. In sum, 15 according to Plaintiff, the contract was, partly in writing, partly oral and can be 16 implied implied partly by conduct. conduct. This is due to the informality of of the arrangement and the 17 fact that Versario did not adhere to the customs and practices for documenting 18

19 projects as well as those required by law.

20 5. Plaintiff Plaintifftestified that, testified that,atatthe theoutset, outset,Versario Versariodemanded demanded aa deposit deposit of of $10,000. 21 21 Allegedly, Allegedly, he he also also demanded demanded $2,000 $2,000 for a blueprint that would be needed for 22 recording purposes. 23 6. Plaintiff Plaintifftestified testifiedthat thataalitany litanyof ofworkers workers appeared appeared at at the the construction site 24

25 demanding money. The The plaintiff plaintiff explained explained to them that she pays Versario, and he

26 pays the subcontractors. The workers complained that Versario Versario was was not not paying paying them. 27

28 Page 2 of of 13 13 In sum, according to Plaintiff, Versario kept demanding more money or he would 1

22 not work.

3 7. Plaintiff Plaintifftestified testifiedthat thatthe theconstruction constructionwork work was was not not prosecuted prosecuted to conclusion. On 4 many days, allegedly, allegedly, no no workers workers appeared. appeared. On others, no work was done until 2:00 5 or 3:00 P.M. Plaintiff Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereupon alleges that one 6

7 subcontractor used the residence residence for for housing housing for for himself himself and and his his family. family. By the time

8 Plaintiff Plaintiff terminated terminated the the contract, contract, the the work work had had been been abandoned abandoned by by Versario Versario.

9 8. Plaintiff Plaintifftestified testifiedthat thatthe thequality qualityof ofthe the work work attempted attempted by by Versario Versario was was substandard, substandard, 10 defective, unsafe, in violation violation of of building building codes and and beneath the standard standard of of care 11 exhibited by building building contractors in Guam including home improvement improvement contractors. 12

13 9. Plaintiff Plaintifftestified testifiedthat, that,atatthe thetime, time, Plaintiff Plaintiffterminated terminated the the contract contract there were no

14 doors or front walk, the front side of the extension was wide open, the electric wiring 15 was defective, the tile work was cracking and lacked lacked grout, the bathroom was 16 incomplete in many many respects, respects, the the bathroom door was inoperable, the gate had been 17 paid for but was not completed, the floor floor was was wavy wavy and defective, the walls had 18

19 numerous defects and have to be ripped out. out. Versario had nailed through the butler

20 tiles on the roof creating numerous leaks. They were all ruined and damage had 21 resulted. Several items of personal property property belonging belonging to Plaintiff Plaintiff have been 22 damaged by Versario, his workers and the defective work. 23 10. Plaintiff Plaintiff testified that Versario was notified of each and every problem and was 24

25 asked to repair them and to complete the the work. work. He He allegedly allegedly refused. refused. Accordingly, Accordingly,

26 Plaintiff Plaintiffterminated terminated the the contract contract on on or or about about February February2021 2021. 27

228 Page 3 of of 13 11. Plaintiff 11. Plaintiff testified that, on or about January 29, 29, 2021, 2021, the the lease lease for for alternate alternate living 1

2 space arranged for by the Plaintiff expired expired and and she she moved moved her family back into the

3 construction site. 4 12. Plaintiff testified testified that the work that the work was was supposed supposed to to have have been been completed completed by Versario, 5 but it was not. The work site was allegedly left full of of debris that was dangerous to 6 the children children and and Plaintiff Plaintiff One of of Plaintiff' Plaintiff s children cut their foot on a jagged jagged piece 7

8 of tile. Additionally, the quiet enjoyment of of Plaintiff enjoyment of Plaintiff and her children was

9 compromised due compromised due to to the the condition condition in in which which Versario Versario left the residence. 10 13. On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Verified December 16, Verified Complaint for Damages and a 11 Demand Demand for for Jury Jury Trial Trial with six causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract Against 12

13 Defendants, (2) Negligence Negligence by Defendants, (3) Rescission and Restitution Against

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

Borja-Atalig v. Versario, (superctguam 2024).

Borja-Atalig v. Versario (Borja-Atalig v. Versario) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Erlich v. Menezes
981 P.2d 978 (California Supreme Court, 1999)
Contractor's Safety Ass'n v. California Compensation Insurance
307 P.2d 626 (California Supreme Court, 1957)
City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC
645 F.3d 114 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Speirs v. BlueFire Ethanol Fuels CA4/3
243 Cal. App. 4th 969 (California Court of Appeal, 2015)