1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM IVI? l,cry <"l .- 2 2 ~"- ,~f1 1/: 6 3 ADRIAN L. CRISTOBAL, CONCEPCION ) Civil Case no. C\f~8J F Co U F. CRISTOBAL, JORGE E.U. ) 4 CRISTOBAL, BEATRIZ CRISTOBAL, ) E.C. LEON GUERRERO, JUAN B. LEON ) 5 GUERRERO, ALBERTO C. ) DECISION AND ORDER LAMORENA, ill, trustee, and FE C. ) re: Motion for Reconsideration 6 LAMORENA, ) ) 7 Plaintiffs, ) ) 8 v. ) ) 9 ) ) 10 JEFFREY SIEGEL, FRANCIS L. GILL, ) CORAL PIT, INC., ) 11 ) Defendants. ) 12 ---------------------------) 13 INTRODUCfION 14 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on October 20, 2011. 15 16 The Plaintiffs were represented by Anthony R. Camacho. The Defendants were represented by
17 Attorney William C. Bischoff. After considering the matters presented, the court now issues the
18 following decision and order. 19 BACKGROUND 20 The instant matter involves two civil actions filed by the plaintiffs and the alleged breach 21 22 of a settlement agreement between the parties. Conception F. Cristobal et. al., v. Jeffrey Siegel
23 et. al., Civil Case No. 1310-01, Decision and Order at 2-8 (January 13,2004). On June 1, 1988,
24 the Plaintiffs filed a complaint for fraud, damages and cancellation of instruments against the
25 Defendants in the Superior Court of Guam Civil Case No. CV442-88. [d. Plaintiffs sought a 26 declaration that a 1986 lease agreement between themselves and the Defendants be declared void. DECISION AND ORDER Civil Case no. CV 0442-88 1 2 Id. The matter became the subject of extensive litigation between the parties. !d.
3 On or about January 16, 1996, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve
4 the claims filed in CV442-88. !d. The settlement agreement was incorporated by reference into 5 an Order for the Settlement and Compromise of Claims signed by the Court on March 14, 1996. 6 !d. After entry of this final judgment, the parties engaged in a series of negotiations to perform 7 their respective obligations under the agreement. !d. However, these attempts were unsuccessful 8 9 and negotiations ultimately collapsed. !d. The Defendants Coral Pit and Siegel filed a motion to
10 enforce the settlement agreement. !d. That motion was opposed by Defendant Gill and Plaintiffs.
11 Id. 12 The Court expressed its concern regarding the fairness of the settlement agreement. Id. 13 Because of the concern the motion was continued several times. !d. The Court advised that 14 although it ordered performance of the terms agreed upon by the parties, it did not approve the 15 16 terms. !d. Moreover, the Court explained that if the Plaintiffs were pursuing damages and/or
17 rescission, that the parties should file a new proceeding seeking appropriate damages/rescission
18 or other relief. Id. 19 Pursuant to the Court's instruction on July 31, 2001, the Plaintiffs instituted the Civil 20 Case No. 1310-01, setting forth claims against the Defendants for fraud, deceit, and breach of the 21 settlement agreement and extensions thereof. Id. The Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, 22 23 punitive damages, rescission of the settlement agreement and extension agreements, and a
24 25 26
Page 2 of 7 DECISION AND ORDER Civil Case no. CV 0442-88 1 2 declaratory judgement. I
3 Defendant Coral Pit filed its answer to the complaint and incorporated within its answer
4 a counterclaim against the Plaintiffs.ld. Defendant alleged Plaintiffs had been unjustly enriched 5 from a settlement agreement payment of $297,00.00; that despite the payment, Plaintiffs had 6 failed and refused to perform under the settlement agreement; and that Plaintiffs' failure to 7 8 perform has damaged Coral Pit in the sum of$297,000.ld. Defendant requested that Plaintiffs
9 be ordered to perform their obligations under the settlement agreement, and ifnot so ordered, that
10 Coral Pit be awarded $297,000 damages from Plaintiffs. ld.
11 Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike Defendant Coral Pit's Counterclaim for its failure to 12 maintain a business license. They also requested the Court to strike all pleadings filed by 13 Defendants in CV1310-01 and CV44-88.ld. 14 On January 13,2004, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motions to strike Defendant Coral 15 16 Pit's Counterclaim as well as Plaintiffs' motion to strike Defendant's pleadings in CV131O-01.
17 !d. at 17. The Court further denied Defendant Coral Pit's motion to enforce settlement agreement
18 filed under CV442-88 and granted Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the motion for Defendant Coral 19 Pit's lack of a business license. ld. 20 Subsequent to the Court's January 13, 2004 order, Defendant filed motion for 21 22 reconsideration and clarification of the same order and a motion to amend answer. The Court on
23 I Plaintiff requested that the Court enter a declaratory judgment finding that the 24 Defendants breached the 1986 written lease agreement which was the subject of CV 442- 25 88 with the Plaintiffs and that the lease was consequently terminated and void. Conception F. Cristobal et. aI., v. Jeffrey Siegel et. al., Civil Case No. 1310-01, 26 Decision and Order at 2-8 (January 13,2004).
Page 3 of 7 DECISION AND ORDER Civil Case no. CV 0442-88
1 January 28,2004, subsequent to a hearing on the Motion to ClarifY, signed an order indicating that 2 3 it did not intend its January 13, 2004 order to be a final appealable order in CV1310-01 or
4 CV0442-88. Conception F. Cristobal et. aI., v. Jeffrey Siegel et. al., Civil Case No. 1310-01,
5 Decision and Order (January 28, 2004). 6 On March 1,2010, Defendants filed a GRCP Rule 70 motion requesting the court to direct 7 a conveyance of property or enter a judgment divesting the title of Plaintiffs' property in 8 accordance with the Settlement Agreement and Order. More specifically, Defendants want the 9
10 Plaintiffs to convey the remainder of the land in question to Coral Pit by warranty deed. On
11 February 21, 2011, the court granted Defendants motion. 2 On August 1,2011, Plaintiffs filed a
12 motion for reconsideration pursuant to GRCP Rule 60(b) arguing that no relief could be granted 13 under GRCP Rule 70 because no judgment has been entered in this matter. 14 DISCUSSION 15 The Court will consider the motion under the standard for GRCP Rule 60(b). Because 16
17 Plaintiffs argue error and unjust result, only 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) apply to this case. Rule 60(b)
18 provides,
19 On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 20 following reasons:(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... (6) 21 any other reason justifYing relief from operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), (3) not more than one 22 year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was taken. 23 Rule 60(b)(1) grants a court the discretion to relieve a party from a final order for reason of 24 25 2 The court did recognize that the clerk of the court could not sign on behalf of the deceased Plaintiffs until their estates are established and personal representatives 26 appointed and given the opportunity to comply.
Page 4 of 7 DECISION AND ORDER Civil Case no. CV 0442-88
1 mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, provided that the party moves for relief 2
3 within a reasonable time and not more than one year after the order was entered. Brown v. 4 Eastman Kodak Co., 2000 Guam 30 ~ 32. In this case, Petitioners' motion was timely filed.
5 The Supreme Court of Guam has not yet adopted a position concerning whether a trial 6 court may correct an oversight or judicial inadvertence under Rule 60(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM IVI? l,cry <"l .- 2 2 ~"- ,~f1 1/: 6 3 ADRIAN L. CRISTOBAL, CONCEPCION ) Civil Case no. C\f~8J F Co U F. CRISTOBAL, JORGE E.U. ) 4 CRISTOBAL, BEATRIZ CRISTOBAL, ) E.C. LEON GUERRERO, JUAN B. LEON ) 5 GUERRERO, ALBERTO C. ) DECISION AND ORDER LAMORENA, ill, trustee, and FE C. ) re: Motion for Reconsideration 6 LAMORENA, ) ) 7 Plaintiffs, ) ) 8 v. ) ) 9 ) ) 10 JEFFREY SIEGEL, FRANCIS L. GILL, ) CORAL PIT, INC., ) 11 ) Defendants. ) 12 ---------------------------) 13 INTRODUCfION 14 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on October 20, 2011. 15 16 The Plaintiffs were represented by Anthony R. Camacho. The Defendants were represented by
17 Attorney William C. Bischoff. After considering the matters presented, the court now issues the
18 following decision and order. 19 BACKGROUND 20 The instant matter involves two civil actions filed by the plaintiffs and the alleged breach 21 22 of a settlement agreement between the parties. Conception F. Cristobal et. al., v. Jeffrey Siegel
23 et. al., Civil Case No. 1310-01, Decision and Order at 2-8 (January 13,2004). On June 1, 1988,
24 the Plaintiffs filed a complaint for fraud, damages and cancellation of instruments against the
25 Defendants in the Superior Court of Guam Civil Case No. CV442-88. [d. Plaintiffs sought a 26 declaration that a 1986 lease agreement between themselves and the Defendants be declared void. DECISION AND ORDER Civil Case no. CV 0442-88 1 2 Id. The matter became the subject of extensive litigation between the parties. !d.
3 On or about January 16, 1996, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve
4 the claims filed in CV442-88. !d. The settlement agreement was incorporated by reference into 5 an Order for the Settlement and Compromise of Claims signed by the Court on March 14, 1996. 6 !d. After entry of this final judgment, the parties engaged in a series of negotiations to perform 7 their respective obligations under the agreement. !d. However, these attempts were unsuccessful 8 9 and negotiations ultimately collapsed. !d. The Defendants Coral Pit and Siegel filed a motion to
10 enforce the settlement agreement. !d. That motion was opposed by Defendant Gill and Plaintiffs.
11 Id. 12 The Court expressed its concern regarding the fairness of the settlement agreement. Id. 13 Because of the concern the motion was continued several times. !d. The Court advised that 14 although it ordered performance of the terms agreed upon by the parties, it did not approve the 15 16 terms. !d. Moreover, the Court explained that if the Plaintiffs were pursuing damages and/or
17 rescission, that the parties should file a new proceeding seeking appropriate damages/rescission
18 or other relief. Id. 19 Pursuant to the Court's instruction on July 31, 2001, the Plaintiffs instituted the Civil 20 Case No. 1310-01, setting forth claims against the Defendants for fraud, deceit, and breach of the 21 settlement agreement and extensions thereof. Id. The Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, 22 23 punitive damages, rescission of the settlement agreement and extension agreements, and a
24 25 26
Page 2 of 7 DECISION AND ORDER Civil Case no. CV 0442-88 1 2 declaratory judgement. I
3 Defendant Coral Pit filed its answer to the complaint and incorporated within its answer
4 a counterclaim against the Plaintiffs.ld. Defendant alleged Plaintiffs had been unjustly enriched 5 from a settlement agreement payment of $297,00.00; that despite the payment, Plaintiffs had 6 failed and refused to perform under the settlement agreement; and that Plaintiffs' failure to 7 8 perform has damaged Coral Pit in the sum of$297,000.ld. Defendant requested that Plaintiffs
9 be ordered to perform their obligations under the settlement agreement, and ifnot so ordered, that
10 Coral Pit be awarded $297,000 damages from Plaintiffs. ld.
11 Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike Defendant Coral Pit's Counterclaim for its failure to 12 maintain a business license. They also requested the Court to strike all pleadings filed by 13 Defendants in CV1310-01 and CV44-88.ld. 14 On January 13,2004, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motions to strike Defendant Coral 15 16 Pit's Counterclaim as well as Plaintiffs' motion to strike Defendant's pleadings in CV131O-01.
17 !d. at 17. The Court further denied Defendant Coral Pit's motion to enforce settlement agreement
18 filed under CV442-88 and granted Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the motion for Defendant Coral 19 Pit's lack of a business license. ld. 20 Subsequent to the Court's January 13, 2004 order, Defendant filed motion for 21 22 reconsideration and clarification of the same order and a motion to amend answer. The Court on
23 I Plaintiff requested that the Court enter a declaratory judgment finding that the 24 Defendants breached the 1986 written lease agreement which was the subject of CV 442- 25 88 with the Plaintiffs and that the lease was consequently terminated and void. Conception F. Cristobal et. aI., v. Jeffrey Siegel et. al., Civil Case No. 1310-01, 26 Decision and Order at 2-8 (January 13,2004).
Page 3 of 7 DECISION AND ORDER Civil Case no. CV 0442-88
1 January 28,2004, subsequent to a hearing on the Motion to ClarifY, signed an order indicating that 2 3 it did not intend its January 13, 2004 order to be a final appealable order in CV1310-01 or
4 CV0442-88. Conception F. Cristobal et. aI., v. Jeffrey Siegel et. al., Civil Case No. 1310-01,
5 Decision and Order (January 28, 2004). 6 On March 1,2010, Defendants filed a GRCP Rule 70 motion requesting the court to direct 7 a conveyance of property or enter a judgment divesting the title of Plaintiffs' property in 8 accordance with the Settlement Agreement and Order. More specifically, Defendants want the 9
10 Plaintiffs to convey the remainder of the land in question to Coral Pit by warranty deed. On
11 February 21, 2011, the court granted Defendants motion. 2 On August 1,2011, Plaintiffs filed a
12 motion for reconsideration pursuant to GRCP Rule 60(b) arguing that no relief could be granted 13 under GRCP Rule 70 because no judgment has been entered in this matter. 14 DISCUSSION 15 The Court will consider the motion under the standard for GRCP Rule 60(b). Because 16
17 Plaintiffs argue error and unjust result, only 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) apply to this case. Rule 60(b)
18 provides,
19 On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 20 following reasons:(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... (6) 21 any other reason justifYing relief from operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), (3) not more than one 22 year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was taken. 23 Rule 60(b)(1) grants a court the discretion to relieve a party from a final order for reason of 24 25 2 The court did recognize that the clerk of the court could not sign on behalf of the deceased Plaintiffs until their estates are established and personal representatives 26 appointed and given the opportunity to comply.
Page 4 of 7 DECISION AND ORDER Civil Case no. CV 0442-88
1 mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, provided that the party moves for relief 2
3 within a reasonable time and not more than one year after the order was entered. Brown v. 4 Eastman Kodak Co., 2000 Guam 30 ~ 32. In this case, Petitioners' motion was timely filed.
5 The Supreme Court of Guam has not yet adopted a position concerning whether a trial 6 court may correct an oversight or judicial inadvertence under Rule 60(b). However, the Court 7 setting aside a default has noted that "Rule 60(b) is meant to be remedial in nature and therefore 8 9 must be liberally applied." Midsea Industrial, Inc., v. HK Engineering, Ltd., 1998 Guam 14 ~ 3.
10 As further guidance, the Court explained that the standard for Rule 60(b) motions is more
11 permissive in cases where the merits of an argument have not been addressed, holding that "[t]he
12 standard for setting aside a default judgment is distinct from the vacation of disputed and litigated 13 issues. Having concluded that the motion may be properly considered under Rule 60(b), the court 14 must now reach the question of whether the motion should be granted. 15 In determining whether the motion should be granted, the court looks to Rule 70 of the 16
17 Guam Rules of Civil Procedure, and it provides,
18 If a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance ofland or to deliver deeds or other documents or to perform any other specific act and the 19 party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may direct the 20 act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party, by some other person appointed by the court and the act when so done has like effect as if done 21 by the party. On application ofthe party entitled to performance, the clerk shall issue a writ of attachment or sequestration against the property of 22 the disobedient party to compel obedience to the judgment. The court may also in proper cases adjudge the party in contempt. Ifreal or personal 23 property is within Guam, the court in lieu of directing a conveyance 24 thereof may enter a jUdgment divesting the title of any party and vesting it in others and such judgment has the effect of a conveyance executed in 25 due form of law. When any order or judgment is for the delivery of possession, the party in whose favor it is entered is entitled to a writ of 26
Page 5 of 7 DECISION AND ORDER Civil Case no. CV 0442-88
1 execution or assistance upon application to the court. 2 3 Guam R. Civ. Proc. 70. Furthermore, relief under this rule which governs enforcement of specific
4 acts is available only after judgment has been entered. De Beers Consolo Mines V. Us., 325 U.S.
5 212, 218 (1945). According to its plain language, this rule applies only to parties who have failed 6 to perform specific acts pursuant to ajudgment. See McCabe V. Arave, 827 F.2d 634, 639 (9th 7 Cir.1987). 8 9 As mentioned above Plaintiffs argue that no relief could be granted under GRCP Rule 70
10 because no judgment has been entered in this matter. "Judgment" as used in the Guam Rules of
11 Civil Procedure includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies. GRCP Rule 54(a). In 12 the instant case, the court finds that the March 14, 1996 Stipulation and Order for the Settlement 13 and Compromise of Claims constitutes a judgment. The Stipulation and Order, which was signed 14 by Judge Joaquin V.E. Manibusan 3 and both attorneys for the instant parties, provides, 15
16 The above-captioned parties, through counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. The parties have reach a settlement of their disputes in this action and have 17 memorialized their agreement in that certain Settlement Agreement attached 18 hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Court hereby orders the parties to perform their respective obligations 19 pursuant to and under the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement. 20 3. The above-captioned matter shall be dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear their respective costs and attorneys fees. 21 4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Settlement Agreement to enforce the 22 terms and conditions thereof. 5. Let judgment enter accordingly. 23 24 25 3Judge Manibusan was originally assigned the instant case, however due to his 26 appointment as a Federal Magistrate Judge the case was reassigned to this court.
Page 6 of 7 DECISION AND ORDER Civil Case no. CV 0442-88
1 After review of the Stipulation and Order the court finds that this constitutes ajudgment 2 3 as defined by GRCP Rule 54(a) because it is an appealable order. The court also finds it
4 significant that the Order states, 1) the matter shall be dismissed with prejudice and 2) let
5 judgment enter accordingly. This language leads the court to the conclusion that there has been 6 a final detennination ofthe rights of the parties and that judgment has been entered. Furthennore, 7 according to the Order the court retains jurisdiction only over the Settlement Agreement to 8 enforce the tenns and conditions thereof. For these reasons, the court finds that its application of 9
10 Rule 70 was not in error.
11 CONCLUSION 12 Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES the Defendants' motion for reconsideration. 13 14 15 SO ORDERED this 2 day of Eifr 2012. I
16 17 18 Ju ge, Superior Court of Guam I de bereby certify liat I~ fol'ej;' in!: 19 is ~ rl'1! true aDd tllfr«t CIIPY'" he on,lliill 011 file in lhr of~ of lie clerk of tbe Superior Covt flf G .. 20 Dated al Hag , GU.III
21 22 23 24 25 26
Page 7 of 7