Cristobal v. Siegel

Opinion

(II FILED

SUI-tf?}OR COURT

GUAM

27 ‘OV — P U: ! CLFtK C BY:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

ADRIAN L. CRISTOBAL, CONCEPCION Civil Case No. CV0442-$$ F. CRISTOBAL, JORGE E.U. CRISTOBAL, BEATRIZ CRISTOBAL, E.C. LEON GUERRERO, JUAN B. LEON GUERRERO, ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III, trustee, and FE C. LAMORENA,

Plaintiffs,

DECISION AND ORDER

V.

GRANTING MOTION TO

SUBSTITUTE

JEFFREY SIEGEL, FRANCIS GILL, BRYAN HANOHANO, and CORAL PIT, INC.,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Honorable Dana A. Gutierrez based upon Defendant Bottomless Pit,

LLC’s Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 25 Motion and 15 GCA Section 2209 Motion to Substitute

Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, Special Administratrix for the Estate of Concepcion F. Cristobal, As Party

Hereto In Place of the Reverend Adrian F. Cristobal, Who is No Longer the Administrator of the Estate

of Concepcion F. Cristobal (“Motion to Substitute”). The Court took this mailer under advisement at a

hearing on August 3, 2021 and now issues this Decision and Order GRANTING the Motion to

Substitute.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Originally, this lawsuit was initiated by the following Plaintiffs: 1) Adrian L. Cristobal;

2) Concepcion F. Cristobal; 3) Jorge E.U. Cristobal; 4) Beatriz Cristobal; 5) E.C. Leon Guerrero;

6)

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE CV0442-88; Adrian L. Cristobal, et at. v. Jeffrey Siegel, et at.

Juan B. Leon Guerrero; 7) Alberto C. Lamorena, III, trustee; and 8) Fe C. Lamorena (“Orig inal

Plaintiffs”). Complaint (June 1, 1988); First Amended Complaint (June 30, 1988).

2. The Original Plaintiffs named the following Defendants: 1) Jeffrey Siegel; 2) Francis

Gill; 3) Bryan Hanohano; and 4) Coral Pit, Inc. (“Original Defendants”). Id.

3. In a Decision and Order (“D&O”) issued on October 6, 1988, the Honorable Peter C.

Siguenza, Jr. dismissed Defendant Bryan Hanohano from the above-captioned case.

4. On August 11, 1989, Judge Siguenza dismissed all of the Original Plaintiffs’ claims

against all Original Defendants. Order Dismissing Claims (Aug. 11, 1989).

5. The only claim remaining was Defendant Coral Pit, Inc.’s (“Coral Pit”) counterclaim

against the Original Plaintiffs. Answer to First Amended Complaint (July 11, 1988).

6. Coral Pit’s remaining counterclaim was resolved by a Stipulation and Order for the

Settlement and Compromise of Claims executed by the parties and filed on March 14, 1996. The

Stipulation and Order for the Settlement and Compromise was approved by the Court in its Final

Judgment issued on March 14, 1996.

7. On May 21, 2004, Bottomless Pit, LL.C. (“Bottomless Pit”) entered its appearance as

the successor Defendant-Counterclaimant in place of Coral Pit based on Bottomless Pit’s purchase of

Coral Pit on March 23, 2004. Bottomless Pit, LLC’s Position Statement, In Response to the Court’s

July 7, 2021 Order, at 3 (July 29, 2021).

8. Since the entry of the Final Judgment in this case, almost all of the Original Plaintiffs

have passed away and have been replaced by their estates and/or administrators of their estates , or are

no longer interested parties in this suit, as follows:

a) Fe C. Lamorena has passed away. The Estate of Fe C. Lamorena is represented

by Alberto C. Lamorena, III as the Administrator of the Estate. Legal counsel for the Estate of Fe C.

3

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE CV0442-88; Adrian L. Cristobal, et at. v. Jeffrey Siegel, et a!.

Lamorena is Attorney Geri Diaz of Camacho Calvo Law Group LLC.1 Mm. Entry, at 10:02:44 AM

(Aug. 3, 2021).

b) E.C. Leon Guerrero and Juan B. Leon Guerrero have passed away. However all

participating parties agree that the estates of E.C. Leon Guerrero and Juan B. Leon Guerrero no longer

have an interest in this matter and are no longer parties to this suit. See Plaintiffs Estate of Jorge E.U.

Cristobal and Estate of Fe Grata C. Lamorena’s Position Statement, at 2 (July 30, 2021); Bottom less

Pit, LLC’s Position Statement, In Response to the Court’s July 7, 2021 Order, at 3 (July 29, 2021).

c) Jorge E.U. Cristobal and Beatriz Cristobal have passed away. Beatriz Cristobal

predeceased Jorge E.U. Cristobal. Legal Counsel for the Estate of Jorge E.U. Cristobal is Attorn ey

Geri Diaz of Camacho Calvo Law Group LLC.

d) Adrian L. Cristobal and Concepcion Cristobal have passed away. Adrian L.

Cnstobal predeceased Concepcion Cnstobal. The history of Concepcion Cristobal’s status as a party

in this matter is summarized as follows:

i) On January 27, 2016, in Probate Case No. PRO19O-l5, Rev. Adrian F.

Cristobal was appointed as the Administrator of the Estate of Concepcion Cristobal. See Motion to

Substitute, CV0442-88 (Oct. 7, 2019).

ii) On May 21, 2018, the Honorable Michael J. Bordallo ordered that

Adrian F. Cristobal, as the Administrator of the Estate of Concepcion F. Cristobal, be substit uted as a

party in the place of Plaintiff Concepcion Cristobal in the above-captioned case. Id.; see Adrian L.

Cristobal, et al. v. Jeffrey Siegel et al., D&O, CV0442-88 (May 21, 2018).

It is unclear whether “Alberto C. Lamorena, HI, trustee” is a separate and distinct party from Alberto Lamorena, III, as Administrator of the Estate of Fe C. Lamorena and whether Attorney Diaz represents C.

Alberto

C. Lamorena, III, trustee. The parties did not clarify this issue in their position statements filed on July 29, 2021 and July 30, 2021, respectively. See Plaintiffs Estate of Jorge E.U. Cristobal and Estate of Fe Grata C.

Lamorena’s Position Statement, at 2 (July 30, 2021).

4

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE CV0442-88; Adrian L. Cristobal, et al. v. Jeffrey Siegel, et at.

iii) Subsequent to Adrian F. Cristobal’s substitution in this matter, Attorney

Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje was appointed as Special Administrator of the Estate of Concepcion

Cristobal in PRO 190-15 on July 25, 2018, due to Adrian F. Cristobal having left Guam without the

intention of returning. See Motion to Substitute, CV0442-88 (Oct. 7, 2019).

iv) The appointment of Attorney Terlaje as the Special Administrator of the

Estate of Concepcion Cristobal prompted Bottomless Pit to file the present Motion to Substitute

requesting to substitute Attorney Terlaje, as the Special Administrator of the Estate of Concepcion

Cristobal, in the place of the previous administrator of the estate, Adrian F. Cristobal, as a party in the

above-captioned case. Id.

DISCUSSION

Bottomless Pit’s Motion to Substitute cites to Rule 25 of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure

(“GRCP”) and 7 GCA § 2209 in support of its request to substitute Attorney Terlaje, as the Special

Administrator of the Estate of Concepcion Cristobal, in the place of the previous administrator of the

estate, Adrian F. Cristobal, as a party in the above-captioned case. Mot. to Substitute, at 1, 5.

No

party, including Attorney Terlaje as Special Administrator, has filed any opposition to the Motion to

Substitute as of the date of this Order. However, at the hearing on August 3, 2021, Attorney Terlaje

expressed her position that as “special administrator,” she has no authority to be substituted in the

above-captioned matter because her authority is “limited by the probate court.” Mi Entry, at 10:05:10-10:08:26 AM (Aug. 3, 2021). Attorney Terlaje further stated that it is her position that

Bottomless Pit would need to “apply to the probate court” to appoint “the appropriate administrator.”

Id.2

2 Attorney Terlaje cites to nothing to support her contention that special administrators may not be substituted as

a party in a lawsuit, and in fact, the Superior Court of Guam has ordered the substitution of special administrators as a party in various lawsuits. E.g., Chung Sook Kim v. Mi Hye Kim, et at., CVO7IO-ll, D&O

5

DECISION ANI) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE CV0442-88; Adrian L Cristobal, et a!. v. Jeffrey Siege!, et aL

Rule 25(a)(1) of the GRCP3 provides:

If a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper parties. The motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the

successors or representatives of the deceased party and, together with the notice of hearing, shall be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5 and upon persons not parties in the manner provided in Rule 4 for the service of a summons. Unless the motion for substitution is made not later than 90 days after death is suggested upon the record by service of a statement of the fact of the death as provided herein for the service of the motion, the action shall be dismissed as to the deceased party.

Further, Title 15 GCA § 1907 identifies the powers and duties of a special administrato r as

follows:

The special administrator must take possession of all of the real and personal property of the decedent, and preserve it from damage, waste and injury, and must collect all claims, rents, and other income belonging to the estate; and for any such purposes may commence and maintain or defend suits and other legal proceedings as such special administrator.

(emphasis added).4

The power of a special administrator to “maintain or defend suits and other legal proceedings”

authorizes the special administrator to be substituted as a party to a case in the same manne r as the

general administrator. McNeil v. Morgan, 108 P. 69, 69, 71 (Cal. 1910) (affirming the trial court’s order

to substitute a newly appointed special administrator as a party in the place of the previous general

administrator who had been removed).5 When “{i]t was entirely within the power of the probat e court

(Oct. 13, 2014); George Hiller v. Homeowners Association of the Holiday Tower Condominiu ms, et al.,

CV0179-16, D&O (Aug. 3, 2017); Pedro T Aguon v. Satgilt Land Corp., CV1334-96, D&O (March 6, 2012).

Bottomless Pit does not cite to a specific section of Rule 25; however, based on a reading of the nile, the Court

finds this section to be the most relevant to the issue at hand.

Although Bottomless Pit cites to 15 GCA § 2209 in support of its Motion to Substitute, 15 GCA explicitly excludes “special administrators” from the provisions contained within Chapter 22 of § 2201 Title 15. 15

GCA § 2201 (“The term personal representative, as used in this Chapter, shall mean the executor, the

administrator with the will annexed, or the administrator of a decedent’s estate, as the case may be.

Comment: [

] Note, however, that the provisions of Chapter 22 do not apply to special administrators.”). Therefore, 15 GCA § 2209 does not authorize the substitution of Attorney Terlaje.

Zahnen v. Limtiaco, 2008 Guam 5 ¶ 17 (“Because the Guam Legislature enacted a probate code substantially

similar to the California Probate Code in 1953, we look to California case law for interpretation.”)

6

DECISION AND ORDER GRANT1NG MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE CV0442-88, Adrian L. Cristoba4 et al. v. Jeffrey Siegel et aL

to appoint a special administrator with authority to commence and maintain or defend suits and other

legal proceedings,” then it is “also within the scope of the authority of the court to try this case and

make the order substituting the special for the general administrator as a party.” Id.

In the case at bar, as in the case of McNeil, an order of the court with proper jurisdiction

appointed Attorney Terlaje as Special Administrator of the Estate of Cristobal Concepcion. See Motion

to Substitute, Exhibit 1, Order Granting Special Letters of Administration; McNeil, 108 P. at 69-71.

The Order Granting Special Letters of Administration appoints Attorney Terlaje pursuant to 15 GCA §

1901 et seq. Motion to Substitute, Exhibit 1, Order Granting Special Letters of Administration.6

Therefore, it is within the authority of this Court to substitute Attorney Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, as

Special Administrator of the Estate of Concepcion Cristobal, as a party to this suit in the place of the

previously appointed general administrator, Rev. Adrian F. Cristobal.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons and in order to facilitate the resolution of this matter, the

Court hereby GRANTS Defendant Bottomless Pit, LLC’s Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 25 Motion

and 15 GCA Section 2209 Motion to Substitute Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, Special Administratrix for

6 The Order cites to 15 GCA § 1901 et seq. and confers the following powers to the special administrator:

It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje is appointed as Special Administrator of the Estate of Concepcion F. Cristobal, and she is authorized and empowered to collect and preserve for the personal representative all goods, chattels, debts and effects of decedents, and all incomes, rent, issues, profits, claims and demands of the estate, to take charge and management thereof enter on and preserve the same from damage, waste, and injury and for such and all other necessary purposes to exercise all the rights and powers of an Administrator as provided by law and that letters of administration issue upon them taking the oath, without bond.

Motion to Substitute, Exhibit 1, Order Granting Special Letters of Administration (emphasis added). However, the Court does not consider this general language to be dispositive of the issue at hand. Even if the

language in the Order appointing Attorney Terlaje had strictly tracked the language of 15 GCA 1907, the §

substitution of Attorney Terlaje would still be appropriate because she is statutorily authorized to “commence and maintain or defend suits and other legal proceedings as such special administrator.” See McNeil, 108 P.

at

69-71.

7

. .

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE CV0442-88; Adrian L. Cristobal, et at. v. Jeffrey Siegel, et at.

the Estate of Concepcion F. Cristobal, As Party Hereto In Place of the Reverend Adrian F. Cristobal,

Who is No Longer the Administrator of the Estate of Concepcion F. Cristobal.

A Further Proceedings shall be held on November 30, 2021, at 10:15 a.m.

SO ORDERED:_____________

HO ORA LE A.GU Z Judge, uperior Court of Guam

To appear for the hearing: go to: https://guamcourts-org.zoom.us; and enter the Meeting ID: 839 7874 0380 and Passcode: 189701. For technical difficulties, or you may call into the courtroom at (671) 475-3207 five (5) minutes prior to your designated hearing time.

SERVICE VIA ..

I aIowtedg That an electru copy ötttie original was e-maiIe to.

t Cir r:fr”-r 6v ,

£ Lrt

rneLi%)

Joseph BambJt.

y Cledc Superior

Court otGuam