,f
11;-s. *:'
;l__i;>
IL;EPJQ§l€ co l Q? {?3U,ELj\;l
Jui'€ -go PH ET 35
EL;83% ,je(§q;g"§'
i rxw. -E33-2.
IN I THE
T H E SUPERIOR
S U P E R I O R COURT
C O U R T OF
O F GUAM
G U A ;;"J}l;'-,.,-~,----,..,..
IGNACIAB. IGNACIA B. BUTLER BUTLERTRUST,
TRUST, ByBy and
and CIVIL CASE CIVIL CASE no.
NO.CV0462-24
CV0462-24
Its Lawfully
Through Its Lawfully Designated Sole Trustee, DesignatedSole Trustee,
GREGORY D. CHAMPION CHAM PION
Plaintiff,
vs.
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING
CECILIA CHAMPION CECILIA CHAMPION and and CECILIA CECILIA MOTION TO DISMISS WITH OTION TO WITH LEAVE TO CHAMPION PION as the Administratrix ofthe Administratrix of the AMEND Estate of of Gerard
Gerard Andre
Andre Champion,
Defendants. Defendants.
This matter This matter came
came before
before the
the Honorable
Honorable Dana
Dana A. Gutierrez on February A. Gutierrez February 27, 2025 2025 for a
Motion Hearing Hearing on Defendant
Defendant Cecilia Champion's Champion's ("Defendant")
("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss Dismiss (Rule
12(b)(6)) or 12(b)(6)) or in in the
theAlternative
AlternativeMotion
Motion for a More Definite Statement More Definite Statement (Rule 12(e)) ("Motion (Rule 12(e)) ("Motion to
Dismiss"). Present Dismiss"). Present at the the hearing
hearing was
was Attorney
Attorney Jon A.
A. Visosky
Visoskyrepresenting
representing Defendant
Defendant and
and
Attorney Michael MichaelJ.J. Berman
Bermanrepresenting
representing Plaintiff,
Plaintiff,the
the Ignacio
Ignacia B.
B. Butler
ButlerTrust,
Trust, by
by and
and through
through its
lawfully designated lawfillly designated sole trustee, Gregory DD. Champion Champion ("Plaintiff'). Upon review of ("Plaintiff"). Upon of the the
arguments and arguments and applicable applicable Guam law,
law, the Court Defendant's Motion Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
amend.
with leave to amend.
BACKGROUND
This case This case arises
arises from allegations of firm allegations offraud fraud and
and breach
breach of
of fiduciary
fiduciary duty
duty concerning
concerning the
the
disposition of disposition ofreal real property
property originally held in originally held in trust.
trust. The Ignacio
Ignacia B. Butler
Butler Trust
Trust ("the Trust") was
established in established in Guam on July 1, I, 1986.
1986. Am.
Am. Comal.
Comp!. atat 1.I. Since
Since then,
then, the
the Trust
Trust was amended
amended on
October 7, 1986, October 1986, and on June June23,
23,1989. Id at
1989.Id. at 1-2.
1-2. Following the October Following the October 7,
7, 1986
1986 Addendum
Addendum that
that
|
DECISION ANDAND ORDER ORDER GRANTING
GRANTING MOTION
MOTION TO DISMISSDISMISSWITH WITHLEAVE LEAVE TO
TO AMEND
AMEND
CV0462-24, Ignacia B. Butler CV0462-24; Ignacio Butler Trust By and and Through Its Lawfully
Lawfully Designated
Designated Sole Trustee,
Trustee, Gregory D.
Champion v. Champion v. Cecilia Champion as Cecilia Champion as the
the Administratrix
Administratrix of
ofthe
the Estate of
of Gerard
Gerard Andre
Andre Champion
revoked the revoked the July 1, 1, 1986
1986 trust,
trust, Gerard
Gerard A.
A. Champion (the "Decedent")
Champion (the "Decedent") served served as
as the
the sole Trustee.
Trustee.
Id. atat 1I and Id and Ex. C. Upon Ex. C. UponIgnacio
IgnaciaButler's
Butler'sdeath,
death,the
the Trust
Trust was
was to
to continue
continue for
for the
the benefit
benefit of
of her
her
children and children and certain certain religious
religious beneficiaries,
beneficiaries, with
with distribution
distribution Powers
powers expressly
expressly granted
granted to the
the
trustee. Seeid., trustee. See id, Ex.
Ex. C.
From July1986 From July 1986until
untilhis
hisdeath
deathon
onJuly
July19,
19,2023,
2023,the
theDecedent
Decedentserved as the
servedas the sole
sole trustee.
trustee.
Id. atat 2.2. Defendant Id Defendant isis the the Decedent's
Decedent's surviving
surviving legal
legal spouse
spouse and
and the
the Administratrix
Administratrix of
of the
the
Decedent's Estate in in Probate
Probate Case
Case No. PR0123-24. Id.
No. PR0123-24. Id
On August On August 7,
7, 2024,
2024,Plaintiff
Plaintiff filed
filed its Complaint
Complaint for Fraud,
Fraud, Declaratory
Declaratory Relief,
Relief, Constructive
Constructive
Trust, and and Unjust
Unjust Enrichment.
Enrichment. On
On August
August 26,
26, 2024,
2024,Plaintiff
Plaintiff filed
filed its
its First
First Amended
Amended Complaint
Complaint
for Fr Fraud, Declar Declaratory
ator y Relief, Constructive Constructive Trust,
Trust, and
and Unj
Unjust Enrichment
Enrichment (the
(the "Amend
"Amended
Complaint")alleging Complaint") allegingfour fourcauses of action
causes faction againstDefendant, against Defendant,both
bothindividually
individuallyand
andininher
her capacity
capacity
as Administratrix of as of the the Estate
Estate of
of Gerard
Gerard Andre Champion
Champion (Probate
(Probate Case No. PR0123-24): (1)
No. PR0123-24): (1)
fraud; (2) fraud; (2) declaratory declaratory relief; (3) constructive constructive trust,
trust; and (4) unjust enrichment. See generally generally Am.
Am.
Comp!. (Aug, Comal. (Aug. 26, 26, 2024).
Plaintiff P la aalleges th
thatt while servin
serving in
in th
that fid
fiduciary role, the Deced ry role, Decedent con conveyed th
the
following two following parcels ofofreal twoparcels realproperty property that
that are
are trust property,
property, first
first to
to himself
himself individually and individually and
subsequently to to Defendant,
Defendant, without consent of without legal authority or the consent of the the Trust's
Trust's beneficiaries. Id.
at 2 and and Ex.
Ex. D.
D.
Parcel I Lot No. Lot No. P19.
P19.1B-4-2NEW, Sinajana, Guam 1B-4-2NEW, Sinajana, Guam (Estate (Estate No. 15504 under
No. 15504 under Basic
Basic Lot
Lot No.
No.
P19.1B-4 && none P19.1B-4 none issued
issued under
under Basic Lot
Lot No.
No. P19.1B),
P19.1B), Suburban, as said lot is Suburban, as
marked and marked and designated
designatedon
onMap
MapDrawing
Drawing No.
No. 23-87-02
23-87-02LM#l 76FY#87, dated LM#176FY#87, dated May
May
6, 1987, 6, 1987, and recorded
recorded on June 25,
25, 1987,
1987, under
under Instrument No. 386725 kismment No. 386725 in
in the
the
Department of Land Department Management, Government Land Management, Government of ofGuam.
Guam. The
The map
map shows
shows the
the area
area
to be approximately 12,009 12,009 square feet (1,116 (1,116 square
square meters).
meters).Last
LastCertificate
Certificate of
of
Title No. Title No. 21569
21569 under
under Basic Lot
Lot No.
No. P19.1B-4
P19.IB-4 was
was issued
issued to Ignacio
Ignacio Bordallo
Butler.
3
I
DECISION ANDAND ORDER ORDER GRANTING
GRANTING MOTION
MOTION TO TO DISMISS
DISMISS WITH
WITH LEA VE TO AMEND
LEAVE EN
CV0462-24; Ignacia CV0462-24, Ignacio B. Butler Trust By and Through Its Lawfully Designated Eutler Trust By and Through Irs Lawfully Designated Sole Trustee, Gregory D.
Trustee,
v. Cecilia
Champion v. Champion as Cecilia Champion as the Administratrix Administratrix of
of the
theEstate
Estateof Gerard Andre Champion ofGerardAna're
Parcel II Lot No. Lot No. P19.1B-4-R3,
Pl9.1B-4-R3, Sinajana,
Sinajana, Guam (Estate
(Estate No.
No. 8637
8637 under
under Basic
Basic Lot
Lot No.
Pl9.1B-2-2 P19. 1B-2-2 &
& Estate No. 15504 under
No. 15504 under Basic
Basic Lot No. P19.1B-4),
Lot No. Pl9.1B-4), Suburban, Suburban, as
as said
lot is marked and lot and designated designatedon
onMap
MapDrawing
Drawing No.
No. 23-87-02
23-87-02LM#l 76FY#87, dated LM#176FY#87,
May6,6, 1987, May 1987, and
and recorded
recorded on
on June
June 25,
25, 1987,
1987, under
under Instrument No.
No. 386725 in
in the
the
Department of Land Department Management, Government Land Management, Government of ofGuam.
Guam. The
The map
map shows
shows the
the area
area
to be approximately 12,009 to 12,009 square square feet (1,116
(1,116 square
square meters).
meters).Last
LastCertificate
Certificate of
of
Title No. Title No. 9703
9703 under
under Basic Lot
Lot No.
No. P19.1B-2-2
Pl9.1B-2-2 was
was issued
issued to
to Carlos Pangelinan
Bordallo and Bordallo and Ernesta Pellicani Bordallo, and Pellicani Bordello, and Certificate of Title Certificate of Title No.
No. 21569
21569 under
under
Basic Lot Basic LotNo. Pl9.1B-4
No. P19. 1B-4 was issued to to Ignacio
Ignacio Bordallo
Bordallo Butler.
Am. Comp!. at Ex. Am. Compo. Ex. D.
D.
Plaintiffcontends Plaintiff contends that
that these
these conveyances
conveyances were
were fraudulent
fraudulent and
and constituted
constituted breaches
breaches of
of
Decedent's fiduciary duties, Decedent's duties, including the the "obligation to exercise "obligation to exercise good good business
business judgment,
judgment, to
to act
act
prudently in the prudently in the operation of the Trust's Trust's business, to
to discharge his
his actions in good faith, faith, to act in
in
the best the interestsof best interests of the the Trust
Trust and
and its
its beneficiaries
beneficiaries and to
to put the
the interest
interest of
of the
the Trust
Tnlst before his
own." Id own." Id atat3.3. Plaintiff Plaintiffurther
furtheralleges
alleges that
that "Defendants
"Defendants were
were direct
direct participants
participants in
in these
these two
two
fraudulent conveyances to to themselves."
themselves." Id.
Id
17, 2024,
On September 17, 2024, Defendant Defendant filed
filed her
her Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss (Rule
(Rule 12(b)(6)) or
or in
in the
the
Alternative Motion Alternative for aa More Motion for More Definite Definite Statement
Statement (Rule 12(e))("Motion 12(e))("Motion to
to Dismiss"). Defendant
Dismiss"). Defendant
seekss to seek to dismiss d ismiss the
the Amended
Amend ed Complaint
Comp laintunder
und erGuam Rulesof
GuamRules of Civil
Civ il Procedure
oced ur e ("GRCP")
("GRCP")
12(b)( 6), which l2(b)(6), whichprovides provides for
for dismissal
dismissalfor
forfailure
failuretotostate
state aa claim upon which claim upon whichrelief
reliefcan
canbe
be granted.
granted.
Mot. Dismissatat1.1. Defendant Mot. Dismiss Defendant argues argues that all
all claims are barred
claims are barred by
by the
thestatutes
statutesofoflimitations. Id At limitations.Id At
3. She 3. She also contends contends that
that the
the Trust
Trust is
is not
not a legal
legal entity capable of suing suing or
or being
being sued,
sued, asserting
asserting
1
that only that a trustee only a trustee may may initiate
initiate litigation.
Iitigation.1 Id at 7.
Id at 7. Further, Defendant argues that Defendant argues the fraud that the fraud claim
claim
1 Defendant 1 Defendant also also notes
notesthat
thatalthough
althoughshe
sheisisnamed
namedininthe
thecaption
captionasas"Administratrix "Administratrix of the Estate Estate of
of Gerard
Andre Champion," she Andre Champion," she has has not
not been formally role. See appointed to that role.
formally appointed See Mot.
Mot. Dismiss
Dismiss atat 2. However,
However, thethe
Parties confirmed Parties confirmed that that she was appointed as was appointed asadministratrix administratrixat
atthe
theMotion
MotionHearing.
Hearing. Min. I 0: 14 a.m.
Min. Entry at l0:14 a.m.
(Feb. 2025). (Feb. 27, 2025).
4
I
DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER GRANTING
GRANTING MOTION
MOTION TO DISMISSDISMISS WITH WITHLEAVE
LEAVE TO
TO AMEND
AMEND
CV0462-24; Ignacia CV0462-24, Ignacio B. Butler Trust By and Through Its Lawfully Designated Trust By and Through Its Lawfully Designated Sole Trustee, Gregory D.
Trustee,
v. Cecilia
Champion v, Champion as Cecilia Champion as the the Administratrix
Administratrix of the
theEstate
Estateof
ofGerard Andre Champion
GerardAndre
must be dismissed dismissed for
for failure
failure to
to plead
plead with
with particularity
particularity under
under GRCP Rule 9(b),
GRCP Rule 9(b ), as
as the
the Amended
Amended
lacks specific allegations Complaint lacks allegations of of dates,
dates, conduct,
conduct, or facts
facts showing how the
the Baud
fraud was
was
at 7-8.
committed. Id. at 7-8. Defendant Defendant notes that
that the
the Amended
Amended Complaint's vague reference Complaint's vague reference to "recent
discovery" fails discovery" fails to to establish
establish when
when the
the alleged
alleged fraud was discovered for purposes of of calculating
calculating the
statute of statute of limitations. Id. atat5-6 limitations. ld In the 5-6 In the alternative, alternative, Defendant
Defendant moves
moves for
for aa more
more definite
definite statement
statement
under GRCP Rulel2(e), GRCP Rule 12(e),requesting requestingthat
that the Court
Court require
require Plaintiff
Plaintiff to
to "allege
"allege more specifically the specifically the
facts upon facts upon which its claims which all its claims are
are based." Id. at 8-9.
Id at
On October On October 14,
14, 2024,
2024, Plaintiff
Plaintiff filed
filed Plaintiff's Opposing Memorandum Plaintiffs Opposing Memorandum to to Defendant's
Defendant's
Motion to Motion to Dismiss Dismiss or
or in
in the
the Alterative
AlternativeMotion
Motionfor
fora aMore
MoreDetailed
DetailedStatement
Statement ("Opposition").
("Opposition").
Plaintiffasserts Plaintiff asserts that that the
the statute
statute of
of limitations
limitations has not run because because the
the alleged
alleged fraud
fraud by former
trustee trustee Gerard Gerard Champion
Champion could not
not have been discovered
discovered until
until his death
death on July 19,
19, 2023, when
when
the current current trustee, trustee,Gregory
Gregory Champion,
Champion, gained access to the relevant trust trust information. Opp. at information. Opp. at 2-
Plaintiff also 3. Plaintiff also refutes refutes Defendant's
Defendant's argument
argument that
that the
the Trust
Trust is
is not aa proper
proper party
party to
to sue,
emphasizing that emphasizing that the suit is is brought by
by and
and through
through its
its lawfully designated sole lawfully designated sole trustee, trustee, Gregory
Champion, who is is the
the real party in interest.
interest. Id. at 7-8.
Id at 7-8. Finally,
Finally, Plaintiff
Plaintiffmaintains
maintains that
that the
the Haud
fraud
claim meets claim meets the pleading standards standards of
of GRCP Rule9(b),
GRCP Rule 9(b),as
as ititclearly
clearlyalleges
allegesthat
that the
the prior
prior trustee
trustee
engaged in in self-dealing
self-dealing by transferring trust property property to
tohimself
himself and
and his
hiswife
wife without
without authority and
includes dates, includes dates, context, and and identifies
identifies the parties involved. Id.
parties involved. at 8-9.
Id at
On November On November 4, 2024,
2024, Defendant
Defendantfiled
tiledDefendant
DefendantCecilia
Cecilia Champion's
Champion's Reply
Reply ("Reply").
Defendant argues Defendant argues that thatthe
thestatute
statuteoflimitations
of limitationsbars
barsPlaintiff's
Plaintiffs claims
claims because
because Gregory
Gregory Champion,
Champion,
as a beneficiary for 35 beneficiary for 35 years, years, had access to
to public records of
public records ofthe
the alleged
alleged property
property transfers
transfers and
cannot claim ignorance until claim ignorance until becoming becoming trustee.
trustee. Reply I. The
at 1.
Reply at Replyasserts The Reply asserts that
that the
the Amended
Amended
55
DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS DISMISS WITH
WITH LEAVE
LEAVE TOT() AMEND
AMEND
CV0462-24; Ignacio CV0462-24, Ignacia B. Butler Trust Trust By
By and
and Through
Through Its
Its Lawfully
Lawfully Designated
Designated Sole
Sole Trustee,
Trustee, Gregory D.
v. Cecilia Champion v. Cecilia Champion as the Administratrix of the Administratrix of the Estate Estateof Gerard Andre Champion ofGerord
Complaint fails Complaint fails to to plead
plead Baud
fraud with
withparticularity
particularityor
orestablish
establish grounds
grounds for
for delayed
delayed discovery, as it
specific dates, lacks specific Defendant's involvement, and allegations of dates, Defendant's Id. at of concealment. id. at 2-5.
On 12,2024, On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff Plaintiff filed
filed Plaintiffs
PlaintiffsSur-Reply
Sur-ReplyMemorandum
MemorandumtotoDefendants
Defendants'
Reply Memorandum Reply ("Sur-Reply"). 2Plaintiff Memorandum("Sur-Reply").2 Plaintiffmaintained maintainedthat
that the
the Amended
Amended Complaint
Complaintmeets
meets the
the
pleading standards pleading standards under underGRCP Rules 8(a)
GRCP Rules 8(a) and 9(b)
9(b) by
by sufficiently
sufficiently alleging fraud, fraud, particularly
particularly in
in
the context of the context of aa fiduciary fiduciary relationship
relationship involving nondisclosure. Sur-Reply involving nondisclosure. Sur-Reply at at 2.
2. Plaintiff
Plaintiffasserts
asserts
that both both actual actual and
and constructive
constructive fraud
fraud are
are properly
properly alleged,
alleged, and
and that
that the
the failure
failure to
to disclose
disclose real
real
estate transfers estate transfersby by the
theformer
former trustee
trusteeconstitutes
constitutesfraud
fraudsufficient
sufficient to
to toll
toll the statuteof
the statute of limitations, limitations,
especially given the especially given the fiduciary relationship. Id.
fiduciary relationship. Id at at 4.
4. Finally,
Finally, Plaintiff
Plaintiffcontends
contends that
that the
the "recent
"recent
allegation is
discovery" allegation is specific specific enough Guam law. Id.
enough under Guam at 7.
Id at
On February On February 27, 27, 2025,
2025, the
the Court
Court held
held aa motion
motion hearing
hearing on
on the
the matter.
matter. After
After hearing
hearing
arguments from the arguments from parties, the the parties, theCourt
Court took
took the
the matter
matterunder advisement.Id.
underadvisement. Id at
at 10:39
10:39AM
AM (Feb.
(Feb. 27,
27,
2025). 2025).
DISCUSSION
S
GRCP GRCPRule Rulel2(b)(6)
12(b)( 6)provides
providesgrounds
groundsfor
fordismissal
dismissalfor
forfailure
failure to
to state
state aa claim
claim upon
upon which
which
relief relief can can be be granted. "In ruling
granted. "In ruling on
on aa l2(b)(6)
12(b)(6) motion,
motion, aa court's consideration is court's consideration is limited limited to
to the
the
complaint, complaint, written written instruments
instruments attached to the attached to the complaint complaint as
as exhibits,
exhibits, statements
statements or
or documents
documents
incorporated incorporated in the complaint in the complaint by
by reference,
reference, and documents on and documents on which
which the
the complaint
complaint heavily
heavily relies .a s
relies."
Newby v. Newby v. Gov Gov't't of of Guam,
Guam, 2010 Guam 4
2010 Guam 41]
'1[ 14. Whenanalyzing
14,When GRCP 12(b)(6)
analyzingaaGRCP l2(b)(6) motion motion to dismiss,
to dismiss,
the Court the Court "may "may consider
consider aa document the authenticity document the authenticity of of which
which is
is not
not contested, and upon
contested, and upon which which
the plaintiffs complaint the plaintiffs complaint necessarily Id. ate]
relies." Id
necessarily relies." at 15. ,r Generally, motions
15. Generally, motions to to dismiss
dismiss are
are"viewed
"viewed
2 The delay between the filing of Plaintiffs Opposition and Defendant's Reply & Plaintiffs sur-reply was 2 The delay between the filing of Plaintiffs Opposition and Defendant's Reply & Plaintiffs sur-reply was a result of a of a stipulation stipulation to
to extend
extend the
thetime
timefor
for filing
filing filed on
on October
October 28,
28, 2024.
2024.
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS DISMISS WITH
WITH LEA VE TO
LEAVE TO AMEND
AMEND
CV0462-24; Ignacia CV0462-24, Ignacio B. Butler Trust Trust ByBy and
and Through
Through ItsIts Lawfully
Lawfully Designated
Designated Sole Trustee,
Trustee, Gregory D.
Champion v. Cecilia Champion Champion as Cecilia Champion as the the Administratrix
Administratrix of
ofthe
the Estate
Estate of
of Gerard
Gerard Andre
Andre Champion
with disfavor with disfavor and and [are]
[are] rarely
rarely granted."
granted." Gilligan
Gilliganv.v. Jam
Jamco Dev.
Dev. Corp., 108 F.3d
Corp., 108 F.3d 246,
246,249 (1997).
(1997).
ea
"Dismissalisis only "Dismissal onlyproper ifit is proper init is clear
clear ... that the complaint .. that couldnot complaint could not be
be saved
saved by any amendment."
Taitano v. Tairano 2008 Gu v. Calvo Finance Corp., 2008 Guam a 12 1]9.9.When
12 ,r
When reviewing
reviewing aa GRCP Rule 12(b)(6)
GRCP Rule 12(b)(6)
motion, the motion, the court must construe the the pleading
pleading in the
the light
light most favorable to the the non-moving
non-moving party
and resolve all doubts in in the non-moving party's favor. Id.
non-moving party's
I. Amended The Ame Complaint
nde Compl ai Identifies
Ide nti ti e s Gregory
Gre gorv D.
D. Champion as the
on as the RReal
e
Party in Partv in Interest.
Interest.
Defendant argues Defendant argues that that dismissal
dismissal is
is warranted
warrantedbecause
becausePlaintiff
Plaintiff referred
referredtotoitself
itselfasas"Plaintiff
"Plaintiff
Trust" and the Tnlst" and the Trust Trust was
was not
not aa party of suing party capable of suing pursuant pursuant to
to the
the Amended
Amended Complaint. See
Complaint. See
Mot. Dismiss Mot. Dismissatat 7.
7. However,
However, Defendant's
Defendant's position
positionmischaracterizes
mischaracterizes the
the caption
caption of
of the
the Amended
While itit isis true
Complaint. While true that that under common law only common law onlyaa real
real party
party in
in interest
interest may
may maintain
maintain an
action, and and that thatin
intrust
Mst cases this
this party
party is
is typically
typically the
the trustee,
trustee,the
theAmended
Amended Complaint
Complaint expressly
complies with that requirement requirement by
by identifying
identifying the
the Plaintiff as "Ignacia Plaintiff as "Ignacio B. Butler Butler Trust,
Trust, by and
lawfully designated
through its lawhllly designated sole sole trustee,
trustee, Gregory
Gregory D.
D. Champion." See Am. Compo.
Champion." See Comp!. at at 1I
added).
(emphasis added).
Defendant correctly Defendant correctly cites cites that
that Powers
Powers v. Ashton states that a party v. Ashton party who who is not the real party
in interest in interest may not maintain a suit, and that that complaints by or on behalf complaints brought by behalf of of a trust without
without
identifyingthe identifying the trustee trustee are
areinvalid.
invalid. Powers v. Ashton, 45 Cal.App.3d Powers v. 783, 787-88 CaLApp.3d 783, (!
787-88 (1975). However,
However,
this case addresses addresses pleadings
pleadings where the trustee trustee is
is unnamed.
unnamed. That
That is
is not
not the
thecase
casehere.
here.The
TheAmended
Amended
Complaint and Complaint and subsequent subsequent filings
filings make clear that
that "Gregory
"Gregory D.
D. Champion" is the
Champion" is the sole
sole tnlstee
trustee and
that the action that is being initiated "by action is and through "by and lawfullydesignated through its lawfully designated sole trustee."
trustee."Am.
Am. Comp!.
Comal.
I. at 1.
DECISION ANDAND ORDER ORDER GRANTING
GRANTING MOTIONMOTION TO DISMISS DISMISSWITH WITHLEA VE TO LEAVE TO AMEND
AMEND
CV0462-24; Ignacia CV0462-24, Ignacio B.
B. Butler Trust
Trust By
By and
and Through
Through Its Lawfully Designated Sole Trustee, Lawfully Designated Trustee, Gregory D.
Champion v. Champion v. Cecilia CeciliaChampion
Championas asthe
the Administratrix
Administratrixof
ofthe
the Estate of
of Gerard
Gerard Andre Champion
because the
Thus, because the Amended Amended Complaint
Complaint properly identifies Gregory D. Champion Champion as
as the
the
trustee trustee and and real realparty
partyin
in interest,
interest,the
theCourt
Courtfinds
finds no
no basis
basis to
to dismiss
dismiss the
the action
action on this ground.
II. Plaintiff's Claims Plaintiff's Are Not Claims Are Not Barred
Barredby the Statute
bythe Statute of Limitations.
Defendant argues that Defendant that Plaintiff's claimsare PlaintifFs claims aretime-barred time-barredby
by the
the three-year period
period prescribed
prescribed
in in 7 GCA GCA §§ 11305 11305 because Gregory
Gregory Champion,
Champion, "had access
access to
topublicly
publicly available
available information
information about
the land the land transfers transfersduring
duringthose
those35
35years,"
years,"that hewas
thathe wasa abeneficiary.
beneficiary.Mot.
Mot.Dismiss
Dismiss at
at2.
2.However,
However,
Plaintiffargues Plaintiff argues that that Gregory Champion
Champion had
had no
no duty
duty to
to inquire
inquire and
and investigate
investigate as
as to the Trust's
property transfers property transfers until mltil he
he became
became the
the Trustee
Trusteefollowing the Decedent's passing. Sur-Reply following the at 7-
Sur-Reply at
9. Further, he he argues
argues that
that he
he discovered
discovered the
the documents
documents transferring
transfening the
the Trust
Trust properties through
bank documents, which bank were not which were not public
publicrecords.
records. Min.
Min.Entry
Entryatat10:20
10:20 a.m.
a.m. (Feb.
(Feb. 27,
27, 2025).
Under Under Guam Guam law,
law, the
the statute
statute of
of limitations
limitations for
for fraud
fraud isis three
three years
years 7 GCA
GCA§§11305(d)..
11305(d).
Further, a fraud iiaud cause of actionis isnot faction not"deemed "deemedtotohave
haveaccrued
accrueduntil
untilthe
the discovery by the aggrieved discovery by
party facts constituting party of the facts constituting the the fraud
fraud or
or mistake."
mistake." Id.
Id. ((emphasis added).InInapplying emphasis added). applying77GCA GCA §
§
1305(d)toto aa claim ll305(d) claimofoffraud, fraud, the
the Guam
Guam Supreme
Supreme Court
Court held
held that
that "the statute
statuteof
oflimitations
limitations will
will
begin to run begin when the plaintiff Mn when suspects or plaintiff suspeets or should suspect that that his
his injury
injury was
was caused
causedby
bywrongdoing
wrongdoing
or that someone someone has has done
done something wrong
wrong to
to him." Burkhart
Burkhart v. ,i 2013 Guam 2 1126.
v. Miranda 2013
Additionally, Ad the Guam Sup itionally , the Supreme eme Court has
has held
held that,
that, when
when a ffraud
r case inv
case involves ppublic
recordation, the recordation, the trial trial court
court should not
not conflate
conflate "the
"the constructive
constructive notice
notice given
given to
to subsequent
subsequent
purchasers under purchasers under Guam's statute with Guam's recording statute inquiry notice with the inquiry notice that that starts
starts the statute
statute of
of
in aa fraud
limitations in fraud case." Cruz v.
case." Cruz v. Cruz, 2023 2023 Guam 20
20 1] 21.iJ
21.The
The Guam Court has Guam Supreme Court has
emphasized that emphasized that in cases, public recordation in such cases, recordation does does not
not trigger
trigger inquiry
inquiry notice.
notice. Id. iJ
Id. atat 1] 27
("Where fraud is ("Where fraud is involved, involved, public
public records
records are
are not
not constructive
constructive notice
notice of
of the
the true
true facts
facts to
to the
the
defrauded party.").
party."). Further,
Further, "[p]ublic
"[p]ub1icrecords
recordscannot
cannotbe
beused
usedtotodefend fraud."Id.
defendfraud." ,i
Id at1]26.
DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER GRANTING
GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS DISMISS WITHWITHLEAVE LEAVE TOTO AMEND
AMEND
CV0462-24; Ignaeia CV0462-24, Ignacia B. Butler Trust Trust By
By and
and Through
Through Its Lawfully Trustee, Gregory Lawfully Designated Sole Trustee, Gregory D.
Champion as the
Champion v. Cecilia Champion the Administratrix Administratrix of
of the
theEstate
Estateof Gerard
0fGerardAndre Champion
Plaintiffalso Plaintiff also correctly correctlystates
states that
that courts recognize that that where
where aa confidential
confidential or
or fiduciary
fiduciary
relationship exists, relationship exists, such such as
as between
between aa trustee
trustee and trust
trust beneficiaries,
beneficiaries, the
the statute
statute of
of limitations
with begins wi of the t discovery of the fraudulent fraudulent activity. See
See King v.
v. King, 69 F.4th 738,
738, 748
748(I(nth
Ith Cir.
2023)("the failure 2023)("the to disclose failure to discloseaamaterial materialfact
fact constitutes
constitutes fraud
fraud for
for the
the purposes of
of tolling
tollingthe
the statute
statute
oflimitation"); of see Opp.
limitation"), see Opp. at at 5.
Because the Decedent served served as
as sole
sole trustee
trusteefrom
from July
July 1986
1986 until
until his death
death on
on July 19,
19,
2023, Plaintiff 2023, had no Plaintiff had no duty duty to
to investigate
investigate fraudulent actions involving trust assets involving trust assets until until assuming
the role role of trustee. Neither oftrustee. Defendant cited Neither has Defendant cited to to any case law that imposes imposes a duty
duty on
on aa beneficiary
beneficiary
to investigate to investigate fraud Baud through
through public
public records.
records. The
The Amended alleges that Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff
improper property
discovered the improper property transfers transfers only after
after assuming the of trustee.
the role of trustee. As aa result, result,
Plaintiffstates Plaintiff states that that July 20, 2023, is the earliest possible possible discovery date. See See Opp.
Opp. at
at 3.
3.Accepting
Accepting
these allegations these allegations as astrue
trueand
anddrawing
drawingall
allinferences
inferencesininPlaintiffs favor, July Plaintiffs favor, July 20, 20, 2023
2023 would
would be
be the
earliest possible discovery date.
date. As
As Plaintiff filedsuit
Plaintiff filed suitwithin withinthree
threeyears
years of
ofthat
that date,
date, the
the claims
claims
would be would be timely, timely, and
and the
the statute
statute oflimitations does not limitations does not bar
bar the action.
This reasoning reasoning applies
applies not
not only
only to
to Plaintiffs fraud claim, Plaintiffs fraud claim, but of the but to all of the claims claims in
in the
the
Amended Complaint. Amended Complaint. The Theunjust
unjustenrichment,
enrichment, declaratory
declaratory relief
reliefand
and constructive
constructive trust
trust claims are
equitable remedies that depend equitable depend on on the
thesame
samecore allegationof
coreallegation ofDecedent's Decedent's fraud.
fraud.See
SeeMot.
Mot. Dismiss
Dismiss
at 4 to In 4 (citing to In re re Advent
Advent Mgmt. 178 B.R.
Corp., 178
Mgmt. Corp., 480, 488, B.R. 480, 1995 WL
488, 1995 1995)
(9th Cir. 1995)
126290 (9th WL 126290
(internal citations (internal citations removed) to the removed) ("Similar to the unjust unjust enrichment
enrichment and
and declaratory
declaratory relief
relief claims,
'[b]ecause it is a remedy, remedy, the
the right
right to
to aaconstructive trust is consMctive trust is subject subject to
to the
the statute
statuteoflimitations
of limitations on
the underlying that gives rise to the right to action that
underlying action to a constructive constructive trust."').
Therefore, based based on what isisbefore
on what beforethe
theCourt
Courtand
anddrawing
drawingallallinferences
inferencesininPlaintiffs
Plaintiffs favor,
the Court declines to Court declines to dismiss dismiss the
the Amended
Amended Complaint on the
Complaint on the basis of statute statute of
of limitations.
limitations.
DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER GRANTING
GRANTING MOTION
MOTION TO DISMISSDISMISS WITHWITHLEAVE LEAVE TO
TO AMEND
AMEND
CV0462-24, Ignacia B. Butler Trust CV0462-24; Ignacio Trust By By and
and Through
Through ItsIts Lawfully
Lawfully Designated
Designated Sole Trustee,
Trustee, Gregory
Gregory D.
Champion v. Cecilia Champion as the Administratrix of the Champion v. Cecilia Champion as the Administratrix of the Estate of Gerard Andre of Gerard Andre Champion
III. The Amended Complaint The Amended ComplaintDoes Does Not
Not Satisfv
Satisfy Pleading Standards.
Under GRCP Under GRCPRule Rule8(a),
8(a),a apleading
pleadingmust
mustcontain
contain"a"ashort
short and
and plain
plain statement
statement of the
the claim
claim
showing that showing that the pleader pleader is
is entitled
entitled to
to relief." See GRCP
relief." See 8(a). This GRCP 8(a). Thisstandard
standard requires
requires only
only that
that the
complaint provides complaint provides fair fair notice
notice of
ofthe
the nature
nature of the and the the claim and the grounds grounds on
on which it rests.
which it rests. Ukau
Ukau
v. Wang, v. 2016 Guam 18 Wang, 2016 ,i 22.
18 1]22.
However,when However, whenaaparty party alleges
alleges fraud,
fraud, the pleading isis subject the pleading subject to to the heightened requirements
GRCP Rule of GRCP Rule9(b 9(b). See Ukase,
). See ,i 35 26 1]
Ukau, 2016 Guam 26 35 ("Generally, ("Generally, fraud
fraud claims are
are subject to
heightened pleading pleading standards
standardsunder
underRule
Rule 9(b)
9(b)of
ofthe
theGRCP.").
GRCP.").
GRCPRule GRCP Rule9(b)
9(b)provides
providesthat
that"[i]n
"[i]nallallaverments
avermentsofoffraud
fraud or
ormistake,
mistake, the
the circumstances
circumstances
constituting fraud constituting fraud or mistake shall or mistake be stated shall be stated with
with particularity"
particularity" and
and that
that "[m]alice,
"[m]alice, intent,
intent,
knowledge, and knowledge, and other other conditions
conditions of
of mind of aa person
mind of person may be averred may be averred generally."
generally." GRCP 9(b).
GRCP 9(b).
GRCPRule GRCP Rule9(b)
9(b)does
doesnot
notrequire
requireaa plaintiff
plaintifftotoprove
proveaaclaim
claimofoffraud
fraudatat the
the pleading
pleading stage.
stage. Taitano
Taitano ·
v. Calvo v. Calve Finance 2008 Guam Corp., 2008
Finance Corp., 12 ,i 16. "Rather, Guam 121116. "Rather, what what isis required
required is
is that
that a plaintiff set forth plaintiff set
his claim his claim with with sufficient
sufficientdetail
detailtotoprovide
providenotice
noticetotodefendants
defendants as
as to
to what
what particular
particular fraudulent
fraudulent
action is being action alleged."Id.
being alleged." Id (citing Bly-Magee v.v. California, citing Bay-Magee 236 F.3d California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1014, 1019
1019 (9th
(9th Cir. 1989)).
1989)).
This has Th has beendescribed been described as as the
the "who,
"who, what, when, where, and and how" requirement. Ukau, how" requirement. 2016 Guam Ukau, 2016 Guam
26 26 1147.
'1147.
A. Plaintiff'sAllegation Plaintiffs Allegation of
of"Recent Discovery" is Too "Recent Discoverv" Too Vague
Defendant argues Defendant argues that that the
the Amended
Amended Complaint fails to Complaint fails to establish establish when
when the
the statute
statute of
of
limitations commenced limitations commenced because because itit vaguely
vaguely alleges
alleges only a "recent
only a "recent discovery" of the discovery" of the alleged alleged
fraudulent fraudulent property property transfers. SeeMot.
transfers.See Mot. Dismiss at 5-7.
Dismiss at She further 5-7. She further contends contends that
that the
the Amended
Amended
Complaint lacks Complaint lacks any any dates
dates indicating
indicating when
when the
the transfers
transfers occurred
occurred or
or when
when Plaintiff discovered Plaintiff discovered
110
DECISION AND AND ORDER ORDER GRANTING
GRANTING MOTION
MOTION TO DISMISS
DISMISS WITH
WITH LEAVE
LEAVE TO
TO AMEND
AMEND
CV0462-24; Ignoeia CV0462-24, Ignacia B. Butler Trust Trust 8y
By and
and Through
Through Its
Its Lawfully
Lawfully Designated
Designated Sole Trustee,
Trustee, Gregory D.
v. Cecilia Champion v. Cecilia Champion as the Administratrix of the Estate Administratrix of Estate of of Gerard
Gerard Andre
Andre Champion
them, and that that this
this vagueness
vagueness "was
"was done
done order [sic]
[sic] to
to avoid obvious statute
statute of limitations bars bars
applicable to all claims." Id. applicable to at 6.
Id at 6.
response, Plaintiff In response, maintains that Plaintiff maintains that the the phrase
phrase "recent discovery" is is not
not too
too vague
vague as
as he
discovered the alleged misconduct could not have discovered misconduct while while he
he was
was aa beneficiary
beneficiary because
because he lacked
access to trust records.
records. Opp. at 7.
Cruz v. In Cruz v. Cruz, the trial court found that the phrase phrase "recently
"recently discovered" was too vague
establish when to establish when the the statute
statute of
of limitations
limitations commenced
commenced and
and ordered
ordered the
the plaintiff
plaintiff to
to amend
amend with
with
more precise more language. 3 See Cruz, 2023 Guam 201]4.
precise language.3 'I)
Here, Plaintiff Here, Plaintifffails
fails toto identify
identify aamore
more specific
specificdate
date reference
reference to
to "recent discovery" in its
Amended Complaint. Amended Complaint. See See Am.
Am. Con
Comp!. at 22 ("This
pl. at ("This Cause
Cause of
ofAction
Actionisisnot
not barred
barred by the applicable
statute of limitations for statute oflimitations for fraud fraud ...
... because of the only
only recent
recent discovery
discovery of
of the fraudulent
fraudulentscheme.").
scheme.").
However, Ho Plaintiffslater w ever, Plaintiffs laterfilings filings make
make cclear that Plaintiff lear that Plaintiffkno
knows when
ws w c o very oof discovery
hen dis the alleged f the
fraud occurred. In fraud occurred. In his his Opposition,
Opposition, Plaintiff
Plaintiff argues that "the argues that "the earliest earliest that
that [Plaintiff]
[Plaintiff] could have
discovered the the [Decedent's] fraud July 20, fraud was July 20, 2023
2023 ((and thatwould
and that wouldonly
only be
be if
if the
the [Plaintiff]
[Plaintiff]
discovered the fraud the day day the
the [Plaintiff] became
became Trustee)." at 7. Plaintiff Trustee)." Opp. at reiterates this Plaintiff reiterates
point in point in the the Sur-Reply, Sur-Reply, stating
stating that he
he did not and could not have discovered the the fraud
fraud "until
"until he
became Trustee on July became July 20, 20, 2023"
2023" because
because only
onlythen
then did
didhe
heobtain
obtainaccess
access to
to the
the trust's
trust's records.
records.
Sur-Reply at Sur-Reply 2. Because at 2. Because that date
date is
is specific
specific and
and available to Plaintiff, Plaintiff, itit appears
appears that the
the omission
omission
of date in of aa date in the the Amended
Amended Complaint is not Complaint is not due
due to lack of
to lack of knowledge, but rather knowledge, but rather aa lack lack of
of pleading
pleading
detail.
3 The Guam 3 The Guam Supreme Com's Court'sacknowledgment
acknowledgmentofofthe
the trial
trial court's
court's reasoning
reasoning m
may be
be considered
considered persuasive
persuasive
dictum. dictum. Although AlthoughthetheGuam
GuamSupreme
SupremeCourt
Courtacknowledged
acknowledged the
the procedural
procedural history,
history, the
the Guam
Guam Supreme
Supreme
Court Court did did not not directly decide
decide whether phrase "recently whether the phrase "recently discovered" was was too
too vague
vague to
to toll the
the statute
statute of
limitations.
DECISION ANDAND ORDER ORDER GRANTING MOTION MOTION TO TO DISMISS DISMISS WITH
WITHLEAVE
LEAVE TOTO AMENDEN
CV0462-24; Ignacia CV0462-24, Butler Trust Ignacio B. Butler Trust By By and
and Through
Through Its
Its Lawfully
Lawfully Designated
Designated Sole Trustee, Gregory Gregory D.
Champion v. Cecilia Champion as Cecilia Champion as the the Administratrix
Administratrix of
of the
theEstate
Estateof Gerard Andre
ofGerord Andre Champion
Therefore, the the language "recently discovered"
discovered" does
does not
not meet
meet the particularity requirements particularity requirements
of Rule of Rule 9(b)
9(b) of the GRCP.
of the GRCP.
B. B Plaintiff Failed to Plaintiff to Allege Allele Fraud with
with Particularity
Particularitv
The elements of The elements of fraud fraud are:
are: "1)
"l) aa misrepresentation, misrepresentation; 2) knowledge knowledge of
of falsity
falsity (or
(or scienter),
scienter);
3) intent to to defraud
defraud to
to induce reliance; 4) justifiable justifiable reliance; and 5) resulting damages."
damages." Ukase,
Ukau,
Guam26 2016 Guam ,r 26 1136.
36.
Defendant asserts Defendant asserts that thatthe
thefraud
fraudallegations
allegationscontained
containedininthe
theAmended
Amended Complaint
Complaint is "so
vague that vague that [she]
[she] cannot
cannot reasonably
reasonablybe requiredtotoframe berequired frameaaresponsive responsivepleading."
pleading."Mot.
Mot. Dismiss at
Dismiss at
9. 9.
The allegations for The factual allegations for fraud fraud in
in the
the Amended
Amended Complaint
Complaintstates
states that:
that:
8. ItItwas 8. wasaafraudulent fraudulent act
act by
by the
the late Gerard
Gerard A.
A. Champion to convey
Champion to convey legal
legal title
title to
to
the the two
two properties
properties firstfirst to
to himself individually, and himself individually, and then then later
later in
in part,
part, to
to his
lawful spouse, lawful spouse, Defendant Defendant Cecilia
Cecilia Champion.
late Gerard
9. The late Gerard A. A. Champion Champion breached
breached his his fiduciary fiduciary duties
duties to the
the Trust by
making these making these conveyances conveyances to to himself himself and his spouse.
spouse. The
The fiduciary duties
duties he
breached included the breached the obligation obligation toto exercise
exercise good
good business
business judgment,
judgment, to to act
act
prudently in the operation of the Trust's business, in the business, toto discharge discharge hishis actions
actions in
good faith, good faith, to
to act
act in
in the
the best
best interests of the
interests of the Trust
Trust and
and its
its beneficiaries, and to beneficiaries, and to
put the interest of put of the the Trust
Trust before
before his
his own.
own.
10. The The late Gerard A. A. Champion breached his duties Champion breached duties ofloyalty loyalty and good faith by intentionally conveying intentionally conveying to to himself himself individually and to to his wife, wife, Defendant
Defendant
CeciliaChampion, Cecilia Champion,these these two two parcels
parcels ofof property.
property.
11.Defendants ll. Defendants were were direct direct participants
participants inin these
these two
two fraudulent
fraudulent conveyances
conveyances to
themselves.
12. Plaintiff, and its Plaintiff, and its Trust Trust beneficiaries,
beneficiaries,have
have been
been damaged
damaged by by the
the fraudulent
fraudulent acts
of the Defendants. of
Am. Con Comp!. at 3.
pl. at
While these allegations While these allegations reference reference fiduciary
fiduciary duty
duty and
and self-dealing,
self-dealing, they
they fail
fail to
to clearly
identify the identify the legal legal theory
theory of
offraud
fraud being
being asserted
asserted and do
do not
not articulate
articulate how
how the required
required elements
elements of
of
112
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION MOTION TO TO DISMISS WITH W LLEAVE EA V E TOO AMEND
CV0462-24; Ignacio CV0462-24, Ignacia B.
B. Butler
Butler Trust
Trust By and Through
By and Through ItsIts Lawfully Designated Sole Lawfally Designated Sole Trustee, Trustee, Gregory D.
Champion v. Champion v. Cecilia Champion as Cecilia Champion as the the Administrafrix
Administratrix of
ofthe
the Estate
Estate of
of Gerard
Gerard Andre
Andre Champion
fraud are fraud are met. example, itit isis unclear met. For example, unclear whether whether there
there was
was aamisrepresentation,
misrepresentation, whether whether the
the
Decedent intended Decedent intended to to defraud the trustee
trustee and
andhow
how Defendant
Defendant is
is implicated in the
implicated in the matter.
matter.
Plaintiffargues Plaintiff argues that that "[g]iven
"[g]iven the
the fiduciary relationship, fraud, fiduciary relationship, fraud, either either actual or constructive,
sufficiently alleged." is sufficiently Sur-Reply at alleged." Sur-Reply at 7.
7. Plaintiff
Plaintiffadds
adds that
that because
because Gerard
Gerard Champion had aa
fiduciary duty, "any transaction duty, "any transaction involving involving self-dealing
self-dealingisispresumed
presumedFraudulent,
fraudulent, and
and the
the burden
shifts to the the fiduciary
fiduciary to
to justify
justify the transaction." Id.
the transaction." Id at 5.
5. Plaintiff
Plaintiff elaborates in his Sur-Reply Sur-Reply that:
that:
Theree wa Th was aa f id fiduciary relationship, u c ia r y r e la t io i.e.,. , a ttrustee, ip , i. r t e e , who wh o failedd tto ddisclose is c lo s
transactions. The transactions. The Trustee knew or or should
should have
have known
known based
based on
on the
the Trust
Trust that
that he
had had aa duty duty disclose
disclose the
the real
real estate
estate transfer transactions to transfer transactions to the the Trust
Trust and
and to
to the
the
beneficiaries. The beneficiaries. The failure failure to
to disclose
discloseindicates
indicatessufficient
sufficientfacts
facts to
to demonstrate
demonstrate intent
defraud. Disclosure to defraud. of the Disclosure of the facts of the transfers transfers would
would have
have been
been disclosure
disclosure of
of
the Trustee's Trustee's misdeed,
misdeed, aasufficient
sufficient indication of intent indication of intent to deceive.
Id. at 5. Id at
Although the Sur-Reply Although the Sur-Reply provides provides clarity
clarity and
and identifies
identifies the
the type of fraud
fraud alleged
alleged along
along with
with
application of application offacts facts to
to the
the elements,
elements, "it
"it is axiomatic that
that a complaint
complaint may not be
be amended
amended by
by the
the
briefs briefs in in opposition opposition to
to aa motion to
to dismiss."
dismiss." Car
Car Carriers, v. Ford Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Co., 745
745 F.2d
F.2d 1101,
1101,
1107 (7th Cir. 1107 (7th Cir. 1984);
1984), Morgan
Morgan Distributing
Distributing Co.,
Co., Inc.
Inc. v. Unidynamic Corp., v. Unidynamic 68 F.2d Corp., 68 F.2d 992,
992, 995
995 (Sth
(8th
Ci r . 1989). Cir. Therefore, the 1989). Therefore, the Court Court may
may not
not consider
consider the facts or
the facts arguments raised or arguments iaised in
in the Sur Reply
the Sur Reply
the claim of fraud has been sufficiently pleaded.
when determining whether the
However, the However, the Sur-Reply Sur-Replydoes
does demonstrate
demonstrate that
that Plaintiff likely has has sufficient
sufficient information
to to plead fraud claim plead a fraud claim under under Rule
Rule 9(b)
9(b)'s
's heightened
heightened pleading standard. If these pleading standard. were included these facts were included
in the the Amended Amended Complaint, Plaintiff may have have sufficiently alleged alleged fraud.
fraud.
Nonetheless, the Nonetheless, the current current Amended
Amended Complaint deficient because it fails to identify Complaint is deficient identify the the
type of fraud, the elements, elements, and
and sufficient meet the "who, sufficient facts to meet "who, what, when, where, where, and
and how"
how"
requirement. requirement,
DECISION AND AND ORDER ORDER GRANTING
GRANTING MOTION
MOTION TO DISMISS
DISMISS WITH
WITH LEAVE
LEAVE TO
TO AMEND
AMEND
CV0462-24; Ignacia CV0462-24, B. Butler nacio B. Butler TTrust By and rusf By and TThrough Its Lawfully hrough Its Lawfully Designated Designated Sole
Sole TTrustee,
rustee, Gregory
Gregory D.
Champion v. Champion v. Cecilia Champion as Cecilia Champion as the
the Administratrix of the Administratrix off he Estate Estate of Gerard Andre
ofGerara' Andre Champion
Champion
Thus, Plaintiff failed to Plaintiff failed to plead plead his fraud claim with with particularity.
cC.. Plaintiff is Granted Plaintiff Granted Leave to to Amend
Amend
R u l e 115(a) Rule of tthe G 5 ( a ) of GRCP
R CP p provides
rov i d e s t hthat
a t aapparty must
a rt y mu seek
st se e a e ffrom
e k lleave rom tthe amend aa rt tto a
court
h e cou
complaint once complaint once an an answer
answer has been filed
filed but requires
requires that
that such
suchleave
leave"shall
"shall be
be freely
freely given
given when
justice so requires." justice requires." Under Guam Guam law,
law, leave
leave to
to amend
amend should be
be liberally granted.
granted. Arashi
Arashi &
& Co.
Nakashima Enterprises, Inc., 2005 v. Nakashima 2005 Guam ,i 16 (citing 21 1116
Guam 21 Farnan v.
(citing Foman 371 U.S.
v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178(1962)).
178(1962)).
Farnan directs courts to Foman to review whether certain certain factors are present present which against which may mitigate against
leave to amend, leave amend, including: "undue "undue delay,
delay, bad faith or
or dilatory
dilatory motive
motive on
on the
the part
part of
of the
the movant,
repeated re p e a t e d failure f a i l u re to
t o cure
cu re ,deficiencies
. d e f i ci e n ci e s by b y amendments
a me n d me n t s previously p re v i ou sl y allowed, undue a l l ow e d , u n d u e pprejudice re j u d i ce tto
o tthe
he
opposing party by opposing by virtue virtue of
of allowance
allowance of
of the
theamendment,
amendment,[or]
[or]futility
futilityof amendment." Arashi, 2005 ofamendment."Arashi,
14 1 Guam 4 G 1 1,i u a m 221 16.
] 1 Further,
6. F u r t h e r , "an outright "an o u t r i g h t refusal r e f u s a l to grant
to g l e a v e without r a n t leave u s t i f y i n g rreason n y jjustifying any
without a eason
appearing for the appearing the denial denial is not an
an exercise of
of discretion; it is
discretion, it is merely
merely abuse
abuse of
of that
that discretion and
and
inconsistent with the spirit inconsistent spirit of the the Federal
Federal Rules." 2005 Guam Rules." Arashi, 2005 Guam 21 ,i 16 21 11 16 (quoting Farnan, (quoting Foman
371 U.S. 371 U.s. at 182).
Here, although Here, although Plaintiff
Plaintiff has
has already
already amended the original complaint once as a matter the original matter of of
right, no amendments amendments have
havebeen
beenpreviously
previously allowed
allowed by
by this
this Court.
Court. An examination of
An examination of the
the record
reveals no evidence reveals evidence of of bad faith, undue delay delay or aa dilatory
dilatory motive,
motive, Further,
Further, although
although the
the Amended
Amended
Complaint d does
oes not pplead fr
fraud with
with the
the rrequisite specificity, eq uisite sp ecificity, it ddoes sufficiently pput oes sufficiently the ut the
Defendants on Defendants on notice notice of
ofthe
the facts and events
events upon
upon which
which such claim is based.
claim is based. Therefore, Therefore, the Court
Court
does not does not find find that that leave
leave to
toamend
amendwould
would impose undue prejudice impose undue on either prej udice on defendant.
either d ef end ant . See See Eminence
Eminence
Capitall LLC Ca L v.. Aspeon, Aspe Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 1048 (9th
(9th Cir.
Cir. 2003)
2003) (holding
(holding that
that absent
absent an affirmative
showing ofpprejudice, owin g of rej u d ice, aa presumption exists mp t ion exist in ffavor s in of ggranting
avor of leave to amend).
ran t in g leave
114
r \
DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER GRANTING
GRANTING MOTION MOTION TO DISMISSDISMISS WITHWITHLEAVE LEAVE TO
TO AMEND
AMEND
CV0462-24; Ignacio CV0462-24, Ignacia B.
B. Butler
Butler Trust
Trust byBy and
and Through
Through Its
Its Lmtfully
Lawfully Designated
Designated Sole
Sole Trustee,
Trustee, Gregory D.
Champion v. Cecilia Champion Championas Cecilia Champion as the the Administratrix
Administratrix of
ofthe
the Esfafe
Estate of Gerard Andre
ofGerord Andre Champion
Lastly, an Lastly, an amendment would not be futile. At the motion At the motion hearing,
hearing, Plaintiff voiced that Plaintiff voiced that the "
53
issues in the Amended Complaint did Amended Complaint did not not warrant
warrant aa dismissal,
dismissal, but
but that
that "I'm happy to
"I'm happy to amend
amend it."
at 10:23
Min. Entry at 10:23 a.m.
a.m. (Feb.
(Feb. 27,
27, 2025). IfPlaintiff
2025).If Plaintiff is able to to adequately
adequately amend
amend to
to sufficiently
sufficiently
assert his assert his claim claim of Hand
fraud against
against the proper
proper parties,
parties, the
theclaim
claim may
may survive
survive aa motion
motion to
to dismiss.
Accordingly, this Accordingly, this Court Court finds
finds that
that 'justice
'Justice so
so requires"
requires" that
that the
the Court grant Plaintiff Plaintiff leave
leave to
to
amend. See amend. SeeGRCP Rulel5(a).
GRCP Rule 15(a).Furthermore, Furthermore,because
because the
the Court
Court is granting Plaintiff leave to Plaintiff leave to amend,
the the concerns concerns raised
raisedin
inPlaintiffs AlternativeMotion Plaintiffs Alternative Motionhave havealready
alreadybeen
been addressed.
addressed.
CONCLUSION
For the For the foregoing
foregoing reasons,
reasons, the
the Court
Court hereby GRANTS
N T S Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
Motion to Dismiss.
However, the However, the First Amended Amended Complaint is DISMISSED DIS MIS WITHOUT
IT HOUT P PREJUDICE andthe REJUDICE a nd theCou
Court
rt
hereby GRANTS Plaintiff hereby Plaintiffleave leave to
to amend.
amend. Should Plaintiff
Plaintiffchoose
choose to
to amend the
the First
First Amended
Amended
Complaint, the Court Complaint, Plaintiffto Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file file his Second Amended
Amended Complaint
Complaint within thirty (30)
within thirty (30)
from the
days Hom the entry entry of
of this Decision and Order Decision and Order on
on the
the docket.
., ,,____ .':¢.-I
SO s o ORDERED: JUN 0O992025 2025 .»_¢I1- A1/,:--
---------- ' .~'»i< ,:`:.. I
HO ORABIJEDAN GUT EZ Judge. Suberi6r;ct>utt bi GUam