FILE 2 7 ed II: 7
SUPERIOR COURT OF GUA7S
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 7 OF GUAM
$ ) Probate Case No. PRO131-13 9 ) TN THE MAHER OF THE ESTATE 10 OF ) 11 ) ALFONSO FRANCISCO ESCAM1LLA, ) DECISION & ORDER 12 ) Deceased. 13
15 INTRODUCTION 16 This matter came before the Honorable Michael I. Bordallo on a Petition for Order that 17 Estate Property be Partitioned by Sale in the Estate of Alfonso Francisco Escamilla filed on 18
19 March, 8, 2019. Attorney Georgette Bello Conception represents heirs Lenora McGeough,
20 Rosalina Wirkkumen, Jacqueline Yu, and Benedict Reyes (“Remaining Heirs”). Attorney 21 Jacqueline Terlaje represents heirs Lawrence P. Escamilla, Andrew Escamilla, Alfonso J. . .
22 Escamilla, Giana Escamilla, Gemma Babauta, Patrick Escamilla, Julia McDonald, Lorena 23 Cabrilo, Joanna McDonald, and Brianna McDonald (“Majority Heirs”). Having reviewed the 24
25 moving papers, arguments, record, and applicable law, the Court issues the following Decision
26 and Order GRANTING the Remaining Heirs petition. 27
Page 1 of 6 2 BACKGROUND
3 This matter involves two properties (“Properties”) that are owned in their entirety by the
Estate. The Properties are: (1) Lot No. 7-1, Tract 1141, Dededo, Guam and (2) Lot No. 3, 5 Block 8, Tract 255, Unit 1, Mongmong-TOto-Maite (formerly of Sinajana), Guam. The Estate 6 has a total of seventeen (17) heirs, including a trust known as the Christian Endo Supplemental
$ Special Needs Trust.
On March 8, 2019, the Remaining Heirs filed a petition with the Court requesting that 10 the Court order the Properties to be sold and the proceeds be distributed equally amongst the 11 seventeen (17) heirs, less costs of administration and any advancement taken by any of the 12
13 seventeen (17) heirs. Majority Heirs Julia McDonald, Lorena Cabrilo, Joanna McDonald, and
14 Brianna McDonald (“McDonald Clan”) have quitclaimed their interests in the Properties to 15 fellow Majority Heirs Lawrence Escamilla, Andrew Escamilla, Alfonso Escamilla, Gemma 16 Babauta, and Patrick Escamilla (“Escamilla Clan”). 17 On May 31, 2019, the Majority Heirs filed their opposition. In their opposition, the 18
19 Majority Heirs consent and agree that the Properties should not be sold but instead be
20 distributed in undivided interests to the Escamilla Clan. 21 ISSUES 22 Whether the Court should order the sale of the Properties. 23 FACTS 24 25 1. Alfonso Francisco Escamilla passed away on July 7, 2013. He left a will that was
26 submitted to the Court on September 26, 2013 and a codicil to that will which was 27 submitted to the Court on October 4, 2013. 28
Page 2 of 6 2. The codicil contained a residuary clause through which Alonso devised the residue
2 of his estate to the following beneficiaries in equal shares: Lawrence Escamilla,
3 Lenora E. McGeough, Rosalina Escamilla Wirkkunen, Julia Escamilla McDonald,
Carmen Anne Escamilla McGeough, Brendan I. McGeough, Benedict J. Escamilla 5 Reyes, Jacqueline Escamilla Reyes Yu, Rena B. Escamilla McDonald, Joanna R. 6 Escamilla McDonald, Brianna A. Escamilla McDonald, Alfonso J. Marston 7
8 Escamilla, Patrick Lawrence Marston Escamilla, Andrew Steven Marston
Escamilla, Gemma Rose Marston Escamilla, Gianna Marie Marston Escamilla, and 10 “The Christian Endo Supplemental Special Needs Trust.” 11 3: Part of Alfonso’s residuary estate is the Properties to which all the seventeen (17) 12
13 heirs are to receive an equal share.
14 4. The seventeen (17) heirs have not reached a settlement agreement as to how the 15 Properties should be divided amongst themselves while remaining in compliance 16 with Alfonso’s instructions that his Estate be distributed to his heirs in equal shares, 17 share and share alike. 18
19 5. The Remaining Heirs desire the Properties to be sold, arguing the Properties cannot
20 be distributed in equal because they are not large enough to physically subdivide 21 due to the total amount of heirs. 22 6. While they do not dispute the Remaining Heirs argument that the Properties are not 23 large enough to subdivide into equal shares, the Majority Heirs claim that the sale of 24
25 the Properties is unnecessary because the Escamilla Clan has consented to receiving
26 an undivided share in the Properties from the McDonald Clan. 27
Page 3 of 6 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
2 Guam law states that when two or more heirs or devisees are entitled to an undivided
3 interest in real property cannot agree on how the real property should be divided, any one of the
heirs or devisees may petition the Court to partition the property by sale and the Court will 5 avoid the distribution of undivided interests. 15 G.C.A. § 2911. If partitioning the property 6 cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners, the Court may order the property to be
8 sold and the proceeds distributed equally amongst the owners. See 7 G.C.A. § 24412.
ANALYSIS 10 Since a partition sale results in the conversion of real estate into money, possibly against 11 the will of an owner, it should not be ordered unless the necessity for it is clearly established. 12
13 White v. Tillotson, 256 Wis. 574,42 N.W.2d 283 (1950). The burden of proof to establish the
14 necessity for a partition by sale, rather than a partition in kind, is on the party alleging the 15 necessity and advisability of such sale. Cm-den v. Vanderstice, 336 So. 2d 1082 (Ala. 1976); 16 Butte Creeklsland Ranch v. Crim, 136 Cal. App. 3d 360, 186 Cal. Rptr. 252 (3d Dist. 1982); 17 Borzenski v. Estate of Stakttm, 195 Conn. 368, 489 A.2d 341 (1985); McKenzie Banking Co. v.
19 Couch, 332 S.W.3d 349 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
20 The Majority Heirs argue that because the Escamilla Clan consents to receiving 21 an undivided share in the Property from the McDonald Clan, the sale of the Properties is 22 not required by 15 G.C.A. § 2917. 23 The Superior Court, at the hearing provided for in Section 2915 of this Title, shall = proceed to take evidence and to partition, allot, and divide the property so that 25 each party shall receive property of a value proportionate to his interest in the whole, and for that purpose the Superior Court may direct the personal 26 representative to sell any property which cannot be partitioned without great 27 prejudice to the owners and which cannot conveniently be allotted to any one party. The sale shall be conducted and confirmed in the same manner as other 28 interests. Any two or more parties may agree to accept undivided interests.
Page 4 of 6 15 G.C.A. § 2917 2 The Court disagrees with the Majority Heirs application of 15 G.C.A. § 2917 to the matter at 3 hand. The Court finds that while 15 G.C.A. § 2917 allows two or more parties to accept
undivided interests, the acceptance of those undivided interests does not make the sale of the
6 property unnecessary. Therefore, the Court must look at the bona fide consequences for a sale of
the Properties. In order to appropriately determine such consequences, the Court must look at
the appraised values of the Properties along with its area. However, because it is undisputed that 9
10 the area of the Properties is not large enough to subdivide amongst the heirs, the Court will
11 assume that is the case.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILE 2 7 ed II: 7
SUPERIOR COURT OF GUA7S
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 7 OF GUAM
$ ) Probate Case No. PRO131-13 9 ) TN THE MAHER OF THE ESTATE 10 OF ) 11 ) ALFONSO FRANCISCO ESCAM1LLA, ) DECISION & ORDER 12 ) Deceased. 13
15 INTRODUCTION 16 This matter came before the Honorable Michael I. Bordallo on a Petition for Order that 17 Estate Property be Partitioned by Sale in the Estate of Alfonso Francisco Escamilla filed on 18
19 March, 8, 2019. Attorney Georgette Bello Conception represents heirs Lenora McGeough,
20 Rosalina Wirkkumen, Jacqueline Yu, and Benedict Reyes (“Remaining Heirs”). Attorney 21 Jacqueline Terlaje represents heirs Lawrence P. Escamilla, Andrew Escamilla, Alfonso J. . .
22 Escamilla, Giana Escamilla, Gemma Babauta, Patrick Escamilla, Julia McDonald, Lorena 23 Cabrilo, Joanna McDonald, and Brianna McDonald (“Majority Heirs”). Having reviewed the 24
25 moving papers, arguments, record, and applicable law, the Court issues the following Decision
26 and Order GRANTING the Remaining Heirs petition. 27
Page 1 of 6 2 BACKGROUND
3 This matter involves two properties (“Properties”) that are owned in their entirety by the
Estate. The Properties are: (1) Lot No. 7-1, Tract 1141, Dededo, Guam and (2) Lot No. 3, 5 Block 8, Tract 255, Unit 1, Mongmong-TOto-Maite (formerly of Sinajana), Guam. The Estate 6 has a total of seventeen (17) heirs, including a trust known as the Christian Endo Supplemental
$ Special Needs Trust.
On March 8, 2019, the Remaining Heirs filed a petition with the Court requesting that 10 the Court order the Properties to be sold and the proceeds be distributed equally amongst the 11 seventeen (17) heirs, less costs of administration and any advancement taken by any of the 12
13 seventeen (17) heirs. Majority Heirs Julia McDonald, Lorena Cabrilo, Joanna McDonald, and
14 Brianna McDonald (“McDonald Clan”) have quitclaimed their interests in the Properties to 15 fellow Majority Heirs Lawrence Escamilla, Andrew Escamilla, Alfonso Escamilla, Gemma 16 Babauta, and Patrick Escamilla (“Escamilla Clan”). 17 On May 31, 2019, the Majority Heirs filed their opposition. In their opposition, the 18
19 Majority Heirs consent and agree that the Properties should not be sold but instead be
20 distributed in undivided interests to the Escamilla Clan. 21 ISSUES 22 Whether the Court should order the sale of the Properties. 23 FACTS 24 25 1. Alfonso Francisco Escamilla passed away on July 7, 2013. He left a will that was
26 submitted to the Court on September 26, 2013 and a codicil to that will which was 27 submitted to the Court on October 4, 2013. 28
Page 2 of 6 2. The codicil contained a residuary clause through which Alonso devised the residue
2 of his estate to the following beneficiaries in equal shares: Lawrence Escamilla,
3 Lenora E. McGeough, Rosalina Escamilla Wirkkunen, Julia Escamilla McDonald,
Carmen Anne Escamilla McGeough, Brendan I. McGeough, Benedict J. Escamilla 5 Reyes, Jacqueline Escamilla Reyes Yu, Rena B. Escamilla McDonald, Joanna R. 6 Escamilla McDonald, Brianna A. Escamilla McDonald, Alfonso J. Marston 7
8 Escamilla, Patrick Lawrence Marston Escamilla, Andrew Steven Marston
Escamilla, Gemma Rose Marston Escamilla, Gianna Marie Marston Escamilla, and 10 “The Christian Endo Supplemental Special Needs Trust.” 11 3: Part of Alfonso’s residuary estate is the Properties to which all the seventeen (17) 12
13 heirs are to receive an equal share.
14 4. The seventeen (17) heirs have not reached a settlement agreement as to how the 15 Properties should be divided amongst themselves while remaining in compliance 16 with Alfonso’s instructions that his Estate be distributed to his heirs in equal shares, 17 share and share alike. 18
19 5. The Remaining Heirs desire the Properties to be sold, arguing the Properties cannot
20 be distributed in equal because they are not large enough to physically subdivide 21 due to the total amount of heirs. 22 6. While they do not dispute the Remaining Heirs argument that the Properties are not 23 large enough to subdivide into equal shares, the Majority Heirs claim that the sale of 24
25 the Properties is unnecessary because the Escamilla Clan has consented to receiving
26 an undivided share in the Properties from the McDonald Clan. 27
Page 3 of 6 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
2 Guam law states that when two or more heirs or devisees are entitled to an undivided
3 interest in real property cannot agree on how the real property should be divided, any one of the
heirs or devisees may petition the Court to partition the property by sale and the Court will 5 avoid the distribution of undivided interests. 15 G.C.A. § 2911. If partitioning the property 6 cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners, the Court may order the property to be
8 sold and the proceeds distributed equally amongst the owners. See 7 G.C.A. § 24412.
ANALYSIS 10 Since a partition sale results in the conversion of real estate into money, possibly against 11 the will of an owner, it should not be ordered unless the necessity for it is clearly established. 12
13 White v. Tillotson, 256 Wis. 574,42 N.W.2d 283 (1950). The burden of proof to establish the
14 necessity for a partition by sale, rather than a partition in kind, is on the party alleging the 15 necessity and advisability of such sale. Cm-den v. Vanderstice, 336 So. 2d 1082 (Ala. 1976); 16 Butte Creeklsland Ranch v. Crim, 136 Cal. App. 3d 360, 186 Cal. Rptr. 252 (3d Dist. 1982); 17 Borzenski v. Estate of Stakttm, 195 Conn. 368, 489 A.2d 341 (1985); McKenzie Banking Co. v.
19 Couch, 332 S.W.3d 349 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
20 The Majority Heirs argue that because the Escamilla Clan consents to receiving 21 an undivided share in the Property from the McDonald Clan, the sale of the Properties is 22 not required by 15 G.C.A. § 2917. 23 The Superior Court, at the hearing provided for in Section 2915 of this Title, shall = proceed to take evidence and to partition, allot, and divide the property so that 25 each party shall receive property of a value proportionate to his interest in the whole, and for that purpose the Superior Court may direct the personal 26 representative to sell any property which cannot be partitioned without great 27 prejudice to the owners and which cannot conveniently be allotted to any one party. The sale shall be conducted and confirmed in the same manner as other 28 interests. Any two or more parties may agree to accept undivided interests.
Page 4 of 6 15 G.C.A. § 2917 2 The Court disagrees with the Majority Heirs application of 15 G.C.A. § 2917 to the matter at 3 hand. The Court finds that while 15 G.C.A. § 2917 allows two or more parties to accept
undivided interests, the acceptance of those undivided interests does not make the sale of the
6 property unnecessary. Therefore, the Court must look at the bona fide consequences for a sale of
the Properties. In order to appropriately determine such consequences, the Court must look at
the appraised values of the Properties along with its area. However, because it is undisputed that 9
10 the area of the Properties is not large enough to subdivide amongst the heirs, the Court will
11 assume that is the case. 12 Based on the Second Amended Inventory and Appraisement, dated March 6, 2019, the 13 total appraised value of the MTM property is $253,500.00 and the Dededo property is
$80,000.00. Therefore, the total appraised value of the Properties is $333,500.00. There are a
16 total of seventeen (17) heirs to the Properties. Out of the seventeen (17) heirs, the four (4)
17 members of the McDonald Clan have quitclaimed their interest in the Properties to the six (6) 18 members of the Escamilla Clan, in equal shares. As a result, each of the Remaining Heirs and the 19 Christian Endo Foundation, are entitled a l/l7’ undivided interest in the sale proceeds of the 20 Properties, less costs of administration and any advancement taken by any respective heir. Each 21 22 member of the Escamilla Clan are now entitled to a 5151th undivided interest in the Properties
23 and are entitled to the sale proceeds of the Properties in the same manner as the Remaining
Heirs. As such, no matter what the Properties are sold for, the Escamilla Clan will be entitled to a
share in the sale proceeds that exceed the Remaining Heirs share. Furthermore, should the Court 26
27 order the Properties to be sold, nothing will preclude any or all of the members of the Escamilla
28 Clan from making an offer to the Remaining Heirs to acquire the Properties.
Page 5 of 6 Therefore, the Court finds that Remaining Heirs have met their burden by proving to
2 the Court that the Properties cannot be partitioned without great prejudice nor can it be
3 conveniently allotted to one party. Because it is undisputed that the Properties are not large
enough to subdivide in a manner that would maximize the efficiency and economical use of the 5 Properties, the Court finds that a partition of sale is in the benefit, advantage, and best interest 6 of the Escamilla Estate and its heirs. Furthermore, based on the value of the Properties, each of
8 the heirs, particularly the Escamilla Clan, will greatly benefit financially upon the sale of the
Properties. 10 CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Remaining Heirs petition
13 and orders the Executrix of the Estate to sell the Properties.
SO ORDERED, this day of____________________ 2019.
6ZZZZ HON,’ABLE MICHAEL J. BORDALLO 20 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 2]
22 SERVICE VIA COURT BOX 23 I acknowledge that a copy of the original hereto was placed in the 24 court box oJ r
27 Deputy Cleric Superior Court of Guam
Page 6 of 6