PILED 2 ?1fl90CT28 Pfl6
SUPERIOR COURT OF GUA7 5
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 8 OF GUAM
9 ) Probate Case No. PRO13Y-13
10 IN THE MATrER OF THE ESTATE ) 11 Of
12 ALFONSO FRANcIsco ESCAMILLA, ) DECISION & ORDER 13 Deceased. ) 14
15 INTRODUCTION 16
17 This matter came before the Honorable Michael J. Bordallo on the Majority Heirs’
18 Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Trial on Contested Issue. Attorney Cynthia Ecube
19 is the Administratrix for the Estate of Alfonso Francisco Escamilla. Attorney Jacqueline Terlaje 20 represents heirs Lawrence P. Escamilla, Andrew Escamilla, Alfonso J. Escamilla, Giana 21 Escamilla, Gemma Babauta, Patrick Escamilla, Julia McDonald, Lorena Cabrilo, Joanna 22
23 McDonald, and Brianna McDonald (“Majority Heirs”). Attorney Georgette Concepcion
24 represents heirs Lenora McGeough, Rosalina Wirkkunen, CarmenAnne McGeough, Brendan 25 McGeough, Jacqueline Yu, and Benedict Reyes (“Remaining Heirs”). Having reviewed the 26 moving papers, arguments, record, and applicable law, the Court issues the following Decision 27
28 and Order DENYING the Majority Heirs’ Motion.
Page 1 of 8 1 BACKGROUND 2 This matter arises out of Administratrix Cynthia Ecube’s Petition for Preliminary 3 Distribution filed December 1, 2017. In the Petition, the Administratrix requested that the 4 Court grant a preliminary distribution of a portion of the monetary proceeds held in the Estate’s
6 bank account to the seventeen heirs in accordance with the decedent’s will. The Administratrix
proposed a cash distribution of $20,000.00 to each heir, for a total distribution of $340,000.00. $ Additionally, the Admimstratnx argued that certain heirs — Lawrence Escamilla, Patrick 9 Escamilla, Andrew Escamilla, and Julia McDonald — have received advancements from rental 10
payments collected from the Escamilla Apartments and other rental properties. The
12 Administratrix therefor proposed that these heirs should not receive the full $20,000.00 13 preliminary distribution, but should be credited for the sums they have already received. 14 On May 3, 2018, the Court issued a Decision and Order “(the May 3 Decision”) in 15 which it found that certain payments totaling to the amount of $70,885.84 were paid to 16 17 Lawrence after the death of decedent and using Estate funds, and such payments therefore
1$ required the Court’s approval. Dec. and Order, pg. 6. Because the Court did not approve these 19 payments, they constitute a preliminary distribution to Lawrence. Id. Thus, any distribution 20 made to Lawrence will be offset by such prior payments. Id. The Court further found that the 21 payments to Andrew, Patrick, and Julia were not advancements. Id. at 5-6. The Court ordered 22 23 $20,000.00 be paid to all of the heirs except Lawrence. Id. at 7. The Majority Heirs now move
24 for the Court to reconsider its decision. 25 ISSUES 26 1. Whether the Motion for Reconsideration has been filed in a timely manner. 27
2$ 2. Whether the May 3 Decision was manifestly unjust and clearly erroneous because the
Page 2 of $ Court failed to consider whether the management fees and expenses paid to Lawrence 2 were debts of the Estate. 3 FACTS 4
5 1. Alonso Francisco Escamilla along with his wife Carmen Palomo Escalmilla, amassed
6 real property during their lifetimes for the purpose of leasing the properties to generate
rental income. $ 2. During Alonso’s lifetime, Lawrence Escamilla was responsible for managing the rental
properties on behalf of Alonso, which involved the collection of rent, preparing monthly
spreadsheets of amounts received, maintenance and repair of rental properties, yard
12 maintenance and trash disposal, in addition to other duties related to tenant demands. 13 Alfonso passed away on July 7, 2013. He left a will that was submitted to the Court on 14 September 26, 2013 and a codicil to that will which was submitted to the Court on 15 October 4, 2013. 16
17 4. The codicil contained a residuary clause through which Alonso devised the residue of
18 his estate to the following beneficiaries in equal shares: Lawrence Escamilla, Lenora E. 19 McGeough, Rosalina Escamilla Wirkkunen, Julia Escamilla McDonald, CarmenAnne 20 Escamilla McGeough, Brendan J. McGeough, Benedict J. Escamilla Reyes, Jacqueline 21 Escamilla Reyes Yu, Rena B. Escamilla McDonald, Joanna R. Escamilla McDonald, 22
23 Brianna A. Escamilla McDonald, Alfonso J. Marston Escamilla, Patrick Lawrence
24 Marston Escarnilla, Andrew Steven Marston Escamilla, Gemma Rose Marston 25 .
Escamilla, Gianna Marie Marston Escamilla, and “The Christian Endo Supplemental 26 Special Needs Trust.” 27
Page 3 of 8 1 5. Following Alonso’s death, Lawrence continued to manage the rental properties of the 2 Estate, and from the collected rent he took a monthly stipend of $1,500.00 as
“Management Gratuity.” 4 6. On June 13, 2016, the Court issued an Order after Hearing which ordered that Estate
6 Co-Administrator Giana Escamilla deposit all rental proceeds and monies collected
from the Escamilla Apartments each month into the Estate’s bank account. The Court 8 further ordered that Co-Administrator Escamilla was to pay all proper expenses and 9 costs associated with the Escamilla Apartments from the Estate’s bank account. 10
7. On November 23, 2016, the Court held Co-Administrator Giana Escamilla in contempt
12 for violating the June 13 Order after Hearing. The finding of contempt was based upon
Giana’s failure to deposit rental proceeds into the Estate’s bank account and failure to 14 pay maintenance expenses from the Estate’s bank account. 15 8. On December 1, 2017, Administratrix filed a Petition for Preliminary Distribution, 16 17 requesting that the Court grant a preliminary distribution of a portion of the monetary
18 proceeds held in the Estate bank account to the seventeen heirs in accordance with the 19 decedent’s will. Administratrix sought a cash distribution of $20,000.00 to each heir, 20 but argued that Lawrence, Patrick, Andrew, and Julia had already received 21 advancements from rental payments and therefore should not receive the full 22 23 $20,000.00. 24 9. On January 26, 2018, the Majority Heirs filed their Non-Objection to Preliminary 25 Distribution and Objection to Determination of Advancement. The Majority Heirs 26 objected to the Administratrix’s position that the amounts received by Lawrence, 27
28 Patrick, Andrew, and Julia were intended as advancements. As for the amounts paid to
Page 4 of $ 1 Lawrence, the Majority Heirs argued that the amounts were “Management fees and/or 2 Management Gratuity” and therefore should be categorized as expenses of the Estate as 3 opposed to advancements to an heir. 4 10. On May 3, 2018, the Court issued a Decision and Order on Administratrix’s Petition for
6 Preliminary Distribution. The Court held that the payments conveyed to Andrew,
• Patrick, and Julia were not intended as advancements. However, the Court further held 8 that payments amounting to $70,885.84 paid to Lawrence as “Management fees” were
paid after the death of the decedent, and therefore the Court’s approval was necessary. 10
The Court did not approve those payments and they were therefore preliminary
12 distributions to him. Any future distributions to Lawrence must therefore be offset by 13 the amount of the preliminary distributions. 14 PRINCIPLES OF LAW 15 The Majority Heirs seek reconsideration under Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 59. A 16 17 court may reconsider a prior order only on the grounds of (1) a material difference in fact or
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
PILED 2 ?1fl90CT28 Pfl6
SUPERIOR COURT OF GUA7 5
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 8 OF GUAM
9 ) Probate Case No. PRO13Y-13
10 IN THE MATrER OF THE ESTATE ) 11 Of
12 ALFONSO FRANcIsco ESCAMILLA, ) DECISION & ORDER 13 Deceased. ) 14
15 INTRODUCTION 16
17 This matter came before the Honorable Michael J. Bordallo on the Majority Heirs’
18 Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Trial on Contested Issue. Attorney Cynthia Ecube
19 is the Administratrix for the Estate of Alfonso Francisco Escamilla. Attorney Jacqueline Terlaje 20 represents heirs Lawrence P. Escamilla, Andrew Escamilla, Alfonso J. Escamilla, Giana 21 Escamilla, Gemma Babauta, Patrick Escamilla, Julia McDonald, Lorena Cabrilo, Joanna 22
23 McDonald, and Brianna McDonald (“Majority Heirs”). Attorney Georgette Concepcion
24 represents heirs Lenora McGeough, Rosalina Wirkkunen, CarmenAnne McGeough, Brendan 25 McGeough, Jacqueline Yu, and Benedict Reyes (“Remaining Heirs”). Having reviewed the 26 moving papers, arguments, record, and applicable law, the Court issues the following Decision 27
28 and Order DENYING the Majority Heirs’ Motion.
Page 1 of 8 1 BACKGROUND 2 This matter arises out of Administratrix Cynthia Ecube’s Petition for Preliminary 3 Distribution filed December 1, 2017. In the Petition, the Administratrix requested that the 4 Court grant a preliminary distribution of a portion of the monetary proceeds held in the Estate’s
6 bank account to the seventeen heirs in accordance with the decedent’s will. The Administratrix
proposed a cash distribution of $20,000.00 to each heir, for a total distribution of $340,000.00. $ Additionally, the Admimstratnx argued that certain heirs — Lawrence Escamilla, Patrick 9 Escamilla, Andrew Escamilla, and Julia McDonald — have received advancements from rental 10
payments collected from the Escamilla Apartments and other rental properties. The
12 Administratrix therefor proposed that these heirs should not receive the full $20,000.00 13 preliminary distribution, but should be credited for the sums they have already received. 14 On May 3, 2018, the Court issued a Decision and Order “(the May 3 Decision”) in 15 which it found that certain payments totaling to the amount of $70,885.84 were paid to 16 17 Lawrence after the death of decedent and using Estate funds, and such payments therefore
1$ required the Court’s approval. Dec. and Order, pg. 6. Because the Court did not approve these 19 payments, they constitute a preliminary distribution to Lawrence. Id. Thus, any distribution 20 made to Lawrence will be offset by such prior payments. Id. The Court further found that the 21 payments to Andrew, Patrick, and Julia were not advancements. Id. at 5-6. The Court ordered 22 23 $20,000.00 be paid to all of the heirs except Lawrence. Id. at 7. The Majority Heirs now move
24 for the Court to reconsider its decision. 25 ISSUES 26 1. Whether the Motion for Reconsideration has been filed in a timely manner. 27
2$ 2. Whether the May 3 Decision was manifestly unjust and clearly erroneous because the
Page 2 of $ Court failed to consider whether the management fees and expenses paid to Lawrence 2 were debts of the Estate. 3 FACTS 4
5 1. Alonso Francisco Escamilla along with his wife Carmen Palomo Escalmilla, amassed
6 real property during their lifetimes for the purpose of leasing the properties to generate
rental income. $ 2. During Alonso’s lifetime, Lawrence Escamilla was responsible for managing the rental
properties on behalf of Alonso, which involved the collection of rent, preparing monthly
spreadsheets of amounts received, maintenance and repair of rental properties, yard
12 maintenance and trash disposal, in addition to other duties related to tenant demands. 13 Alfonso passed away on July 7, 2013. He left a will that was submitted to the Court on 14 September 26, 2013 and a codicil to that will which was submitted to the Court on 15 October 4, 2013. 16
17 4. The codicil contained a residuary clause through which Alonso devised the residue of
18 his estate to the following beneficiaries in equal shares: Lawrence Escamilla, Lenora E. 19 McGeough, Rosalina Escamilla Wirkkunen, Julia Escamilla McDonald, CarmenAnne 20 Escamilla McGeough, Brendan J. McGeough, Benedict J. Escamilla Reyes, Jacqueline 21 Escamilla Reyes Yu, Rena B. Escamilla McDonald, Joanna R. Escamilla McDonald, 22
23 Brianna A. Escamilla McDonald, Alfonso J. Marston Escamilla, Patrick Lawrence
24 Marston Escarnilla, Andrew Steven Marston Escamilla, Gemma Rose Marston 25 .
Escamilla, Gianna Marie Marston Escamilla, and “The Christian Endo Supplemental 26 Special Needs Trust.” 27
Page 3 of 8 1 5. Following Alonso’s death, Lawrence continued to manage the rental properties of the 2 Estate, and from the collected rent he took a monthly stipend of $1,500.00 as
“Management Gratuity.” 4 6. On June 13, 2016, the Court issued an Order after Hearing which ordered that Estate
6 Co-Administrator Giana Escamilla deposit all rental proceeds and monies collected
from the Escamilla Apartments each month into the Estate’s bank account. The Court 8 further ordered that Co-Administrator Escamilla was to pay all proper expenses and 9 costs associated with the Escamilla Apartments from the Estate’s bank account. 10
7. On November 23, 2016, the Court held Co-Administrator Giana Escamilla in contempt
12 for violating the June 13 Order after Hearing. The finding of contempt was based upon
Giana’s failure to deposit rental proceeds into the Estate’s bank account and failure to 14 pay maintenance expenses from the Estate’s bank account. 15 8. On December 1, 2017, Administratrix filed a Petition for Preliminary Distribution, 16 17 requesting that the Court grant a preliminary distribution of a portion of the monetary
18 proceeds held in the Estate bank account to the seventeen heirs in accordance with the 19 decedent’s will. Administratrix sought a cash distribution of $20,000.00 to each heir, 20 but argued that Lawrence, Patrick, Andrew, and Julia had already received 21 advancements from rental payments and therefore should not receive the full 22 23 $20,000.00. 24 9. On January 26, 2018, the Majority Heirs filed their Non-Objection to Preliminary 25 Distribution and Objection to Determination of Advancement. The Majority Heirs 26 objected to the Administratrix’s position that the amounts received by Lawrence, 27
28 Patrick, Andrew, and Julia were intended as advancements. As for the amounts paid to
Page 4 of $ 1 Lawrence, the Majority Heirs argued that the amounts were “Management fees and/or 2 Management Gratuity” and therefore should be categorized as expenses of the Estate as 3 opposed to advancements to an heir. 4 10. On May 3, 2018, the Court issued a Decision and Order on Administratrix’s Petition for
6 Preliminary Distribution. The Court held that the payments conveyed to Andrew,
• Patrick, and Julia were not intended as advancements. However, the Court further held 8 that payments amounting to $70,885.84 paid to Lawrence as “Management fees” were
paid after the death of the decedent, and therefore the Court’s approval was necessary. 10
The Court did not approve those payments and they were therefore preliminary
12 distributions to him. Any future distributions to Lawrence must therefore be offset by 13 the amount of the preliminary distributions. 14 PRINCIPLES OF LAW 15 The Majority Heirs seek reconsideration under Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 59. A 16 17 court may reconsider a prior order only on the grounds of (1) a material difference in fact or
18 law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable 19 diligence could not have been mown to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such 20 decision; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of 21 such decision; or (3) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the 22
23 Court before such decision. Guam R. Civ. P. 59(e).
24 The Supreme Court of Guam further instructs that reconsideration may be granted 25 where the trial court “(1) is presented with new evidence, (2) committed clear error or the 26 decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 27
2$ Ward v. Re)’es, 1998 Guam 1 ¶ 10. The rule allows a court to reconsider and amend a previous
PageS of 8 I order, but is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interest of finality and 2 conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate oJ Bishop, 229 F,3d 877, 3 890 (9th Cir, 2000) (citation omitted). 4
5 Furthermore, “[m]otions made under Rule 59(e) are aimed at reconsideration, not initial
6 consideration, and thus cannot be used to present a new legal theory, raise arguments for the
first time, or present evidence for the first time when they could have reasonably been raised $ earlier.” Ethics Committee v. Maquera, 2001 Guam 20 ¶ 9. 9 ANALYSIS 10
a. The Majority Heirs’ motion is untimely.
12 As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Majority Heirs’ motion has not been filed 13 in a timely manner. The Court held a Status Hearing on April 16, 2019, during which counsel 14 for the Majority Heirs informed the Court that the parties were unable to reach a settlement as 15 to the distribution of the Estate and that the Majority Heirs would therefore be filing a motion 16 17 for reconsideration of the May 3 Decision. The Court ordered such motion to be filed within
18 ten days of the Status Hearing. The Majority Heirs then filed their Motion to Reconsider on 19 May 31, 2019, which was thirty-five days after the Court-imposed deadline. The Majority Heirs 20 did not seek an enlargement of the briefing period pursuant to Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 21 6(b). The issue of timeliness was argued by the Remaining Heirs in their opposition brief, yet 22 23 the Majority Heirs filed a reply to the opposition which failed to address the issue of timeliness.
24 While the lack of timeliness provides grounds for denial of the Majority Heirs’ Motion, the 25 Court will nonetheless address the merits of their argument. 26 b. The Majority Heirs have not established a proper basis for reconsideration. 27
28 In the May 3 Decision, the Court held the following regarding the payments made to
Page 6 of$ I Lawrence: 7 Finally, Lawrence Escamilla has received $70,885.84 after the death of the 3 decedent between 2013 and 2016 for “Management Fees” and “Management Gratuity.” Because these payments were made after the death of the decedent and 4 with Estate funds, the Court’s approval of these payments was necessary. 5 However, the Court did not approve these payments. As such, the Court determines that the unauthorized payments made to Lawrence Escamilla serve as 6 a preliminary distribution to him. Thus, any distribution made to Lawrence Escamilla will be offset by the amount he has already received as a preliminary distribution. 8 Decision and Order at 6 (May 3, 2018).
The Majority Heirs argue that the Court’s determination of an advancement to
Lawrence Escamilla, without consideration that management fees and expenses are debts of the
12 Estate, was clear error and manifestly unjust. This argument is based upon Section 2719, which 13 provides that if it appears that debts of the decedent have been paid without verified claims 14 having been approved, and it is proven that such debts were justly due and paid in good faith, 15 the Superior Court shall allow the sums to be paid. 15 GCA § 2719. The Majority Heirs did not 16 17 argue the applicability of Section 2719 before the issuance of the May 3 Decision. The
18 Remaining Heirs argue that the failure of the Majority Heirs to make this argument in their 19 Objection prevents them from presenting it in a motion for reconsideration. 20 The Majority Heirs claim that their failure to argue the applicability of Section 2719 21 during the initial consideration of this matter is justified because the only issue before the Court 22
23 was whether certain amounts were advancements under Section 2901. The Court disagrees. The
24 May 3 Decision was issued pursuant to the Administratrix’s Petition for Preliminary 25 Distribution, which argued that Lawrence should not be entitled to receive any further 26 distributions because he has already received advances totaling $70,885.84. Pet. for 27
28 Preliminary Distribution at 9 (Dec. 1, 2017). The Majority Heirs responded to the Petition,
Page 7 of 8 1 filing their Non-Objection to Preliminary Distribution and Objection to Administratrix’s 2 Determination of Advancement on January 26, 2018. The Majority Heirs had the opportunity to 3 present Section 2719 as a possible defense to Administratrix’s intention of denying Lawrence 4 from receiving an advance. Despite its availability, the Majority Heirs failed to make this
6 argument. It is therefore improper for the Majority Heirs to make this argument for the first
‘
time in a motion for reconsideration. See Ethics Coimnittee v. Maqitera, 2001 Guam 20 ¶ 9. 8 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 9 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES the Majority Heirs’ Motion for l0
11 Reconsideration.
SO ORDED, this day of____________________ 2019.
HONOBLE MICHAEL J. BORDALLO 19 Judgef’Superior Court of Guam 20
21 SERVICE VIA COURT BOX 22 i acknowledge that a copy of the original hereto was plaóed in the 23 court box oj. C 24 (th4 25 —‘
Unda-M. ?e. 26 Clerk, Supeor Court of Gua
Page 8 of 8