Cruz v. Estate of Aguon
Opinion
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2
3 MARIA AGUON CRUZ, JOANNE AGUON ) Civil Case no. CV 0628-12 4 SCHAFER, ROSEMARIE AGUON SELBO, )
NANCY AGUON CRUZ, JEANNIE-MARIE )
5 ~g~g~ iY6t~~~~}:T1u~~~~~~~L ) DECISION AND ORDER 6 AGUON MANZOW, ) re: Motion to Dismiss
7 )
Plaintiff, )
8 )
vs. )
9 )
ESTATE OF MARIA G. AGUON, ESTATE ~ 10
11 OF TERESITA G. AGUON AND MICHAEL)
JOSEPH AGUON, )
12 )
13 Defendant. ) 14
15 INTRODUCTION
16 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on August 22, 2012. 17 The Plaintiff is represented by Attorney Leevin T. Camacho. The Defendant Michael Joseph 18 Aguon is represented by Attorney Carlos L. Taitano. After considering the matters presented, 19 the court now issues the following decision and order granting the Defendant's motion to 20
21 dismiss.
22 BACKGROUND 23 This case arises out of probate case PR0207-52, In the matter of the estate of Ignacio 24 Ojeda Aguon, and PR0266-90, In the matter of the estate of Maria Garrido Aguon. On May 25 18, 2012, the Court filed its "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decree of Final 26
27 Distribution" in the consolidated probate case ("Final Decree"). By the Final Decree, the Court
28 found the whole estate of the decedent, Ignacio Ojeda Aguon, was distributed to Maria Garrido
Aguon (Counsel Certif. ~ 3 Ex. A 2: 1-8), and that the decedent, Maria Garrido Aguon, 2 disinherited, by will, all of her heirs, except one, whose name is Teresita Garrido 3 Aguon(Counsel Certif. ~ 3 Ex. A. 6:19-21).
4 Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for the instant action on May 23, 2012. On July 9,2012, 5
6 Defendant Michael Joseph Aguon filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
7 claim upon which relief can be granted. More specifically, Defendant argues the claims and 8 causes of action in the Complaint are barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel or otherwise 9 fail to state any cause of action upon which any relief can be granted.
10
DISCUSSION 11
12 a. Res Judicata or Collateral Estoppel 13 First, the Court will discuss whether or not Plaintiffs claims are barred by res judicata 14 l or collateral estoppel. Res judicata, or claim preclusion , as defined by the Guam Supreme 15 Court in Zahnen v. Limtiaco, is "the doctrine by which a judgment on the merits in a prior suit 16
17 bars a second suit involving the same parties or their privies based on the same cause of action"
18 Zahnen v. Limtiaco, 2008 Guam 5 ~ 10 (quoting In re Application of Leon Guerra, 2001 Guam 19 22 ~ 20 and Trans Pac. Exp. Co. v. Oka Towers Corp., 2000 Guam 3 ~ 13). Claim Preclusion 20 prevents litigation of a claim that was not litigated in a previous suit, but could have been. Id.
21 th (quoting Gospel Missions of Am. V City of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 548, 555 (9 Cir. 2003». To 22
23 successfully invoke a claim preclusion as a defense, one must show that the following elements
24 are present: "(1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier suit, (2) an identify of the causes of 25 the causes of action in both the earlier and later suit, and (3) an identity of the parties or their 26 privies in the two suits." Id. (quoting Trans Pac. Exp. Co. v. Oka Towers Corp., 2000 Guam 3 ~ 16 and Caswell Realty v. Andrews Co., 496 S.E.2d 607 , 610 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998»; See also 2 Leon Guerrero, 2001 Guam 22 ~ 24.
3 To assert a defense of claim preclusion, there must be a final judgment on the merits in 4 an earlier suit. Plaintiffs' assert themselves to be "heirs" of the estates in the consolidated 5
6 probate case. However, Plaintiffs' claims against the Estate of Joaquin Leon Guerrero Aguon
7 have already been adjudicated in a prior probate proceeding. Zahnen, 2008 Guam 5. A final 8 judgment on the Final Decree was filed on June 1, 2012, awarding the disputed property to 9 Teresita Aguon. The Court finds this element has been met because a final judgment on the 10 merits was entered in the consolidated probate case. As for the third element, although the 11
12 identity of the parties in the two suits is not literally identical, the parties are substantially
13 similar. Defendant Estate of Teresita Aguon and Michael Joseph Aguon inherited the property 14 in question from Estate of Ignocio Aguon and Maria Aguon. The Plaintiffs herein were the 15 objectioners and presented their arguments in the consolidated probate case, therefore the Court 16
17 finds the parties to be the same or in privity.
18 The next question before the Court is whether or not there is an identity of the causes of 19 action in both the earlier and later suit. The complaint in the instant action requests for an 20 imposition of a constructive trust and a declaration of clear and quiet title for the lots which are 21 being disputed (Lot 5313, 5309, 5312, 5316 and 5316-1). The prior probate case involved the 22
23 distribution of the above stated lots. Plaintiffs allege Defendants gained the property through
24 fraud, accident, mistake, and/or undue influence. 18 GCA § 65110. Furthermore, Plaintiffs 25 argue the probate court has limited jurisdiction involving the right of heirship and distribution 26 and have not adjudicated the claims in the instant case. Finally, Plaintiff contend the remedies 27
28
I "Res Judicata" can refer generally to both "claim preclusion" and "issue preclusion." Miga v. Warren City School are different in the prior probate proceeding and the instant case.
2 Defendant urges the Court to dismiss the complaint based on claim preclusion. In the 3 prior probate proceeding, the litigants filed objections and held two adversarial hearings in 4 which Plaintiffs fully litigated or could have fully litigated these issues. The Court finds that the 5
6 facts and the issues in the prior proceeding are the same as the instant case. Although the
7 remedy Plaintiff seeks are phrased differently, they essentially request for the same type of 8 relief: property interest in the lots returned by the Guam Ancestral Land Commission. Based on 9 the Final Decree issued by the probate court, the Court found the litigants to have no property 10 interest in lots in question. Maria Garrido Aguon was the beneficiary to the residual clause the 11
12 Estate of Ignacio Aguon and Teresita Aguon was the only heir in Maria Garrido's will.
13 Therefore, Teresita Aguon is the rightful owner of the lots returned by the Guam Ancestral 14 Land Commission.
15 In 1971, Maria Aguon petitioned for Distribution to Sole Distributee Without Rendering 16
17 Account. Notice requirements were satisfied at the time via posted notices and mailed notices
18 to all living heirs of Ignacio Ojeda Aguon. In the Matter of the Estate of Ignacio Ojeda Aguon, 19 In the Matter of the Estate of Maria Garrido Aguon, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law 20 and Decree of Final Distribution ~ 2 (PR0207-52) (PR0266-90). Adequate notice was given by 21 law, all heirs were well beyond the age of majority, and no objections were made at that time.
22
23 Subsequently, Maria Garrido Aguon disinherited all but one heir, Teresita Aguon, in her will.
24 Plaintiffs did not object to the distribution until 2012, more than forty (40) years later. The 25 probate Court decided the case on its merits and affirmed the 1971 decree. Judge Perez rejected 26 Plaintiffs argument and found their objections to be untimely, too late, and prejudicial to the 27
28
Dist. Bd. OfEduc., 465 U.S. 75, 77 n.l (1984).
Defendants who have relied on the prior decrees.
2 The Court agrees and finds the identity of the causes of action in both the earlier and 3 later suit to be the substantially similar. Therefore, the Court grants Defendant's motion to 4 dismiss because Plaintiffs claims or causes of action are barred by res judicata or collateral 5
6 estoppel. The Court need not address whether or not dismissal is warranted on other grounds
7 such as failure to state any claim upon which any relief or because there is a prior pending 8 action in the Guam Supreme Court.
9
10 CONCLUSION 11
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cruz v. Estate of Aguon (Cruz v. Estate of Aguon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.