l=."' I
4=¢: 5 I t ' : i? ls 57=-f?L.?8§¥a. I
,"'=§J@;3~1 202i at JUL3· I £Hl§3= .».i'.8l*§* 01I P.M fO: o www? .1§_A , *-¢ l»~r E IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM
ESTATE ESTATE OF MIN JUNG JUNG SPARKS, CIVIL CIVIL CASE NO. CV0409-24
Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER DENYING vs. MOTION FOR RELIEF
SAMANTHA SAMANTHACHONG CHONGSPARKS SPARKS,s
Defendant. Defendant.
Citing Guam Rules of Guam Rules of Civil Civil Procedure Procedure 60(b)(2) 60(b)(2) and and (5), (5), Plaintiff PlaintiffEstate Estate of ofMin MinJung Jung
Sparks ("the Estate") moves Sparks ("the moves for forrelief reliefrom fromthe theDecember December6,6,2024 2024 Decision Decisionand and Order, Order, which
Defendant Samantha ChongSparks Samantha Chong Sparks("Sparks") ("Sparks") opposes. The TheCourt Courtdetermines determines that that the the Estate is
not entitled to torelief relief and andtherefore thereforeDENIES DENIESits itsMotion Motion for for Relief. Relief.
I. 1. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In In this action, the Estate sought sought to to set set aside aside aatransfer transferof of land land from from the the Decedent, Decedent, Min Min
Jung Sparks Jung Sparkstotoher herdaughter, daughter,Sparks, Sparks,alleging alleginga afraudulent fraudulentconveyance. conveyance.PL Pl.'s Con 's Compl. (July 12,
2024). However, However,ininaaDecember December6,6,2024 2024Decision Decisionand andOrder, Order,the the Court Court dismissed dismissed the the case,
finding that that the Estate Estate failed to follow followGuam Guamlaw lawrequirements requirements to to prosecute prosecute aa fraudulent fraudulent
conveyance, conveyance, specifically, specifically,because becauseititdid didnot notobtain obtainprobate probatecourt court approval approval to to pursue pursue such such claims.
The Estate seeks reconsideration reconsideration under Rule 60, 60, claiming claiming that that the the probate probate court court has now
approved the application to prosecute the fraudulent fraudulent conveyance. conveyance. Pl. PL 's 's Mot. For For Relief Reliefat at 2 (Apr- (Apr.
25, 2025). Sparks Sparksresponds responds that that the probate probate court's coir"r's later approval approval of of the Application Application did did not
constitute new evidence constitute new evidence under underRule Rule60(b 60(b)(2) )(2) because because itit was was "obtainable "obtainable with with due duediligence" diligence"
'. ]l'° ftMF\ \! H f\U@1uuw/H CV0409-24 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF Page 2
before the case was dismissed. Id. Id. atat 2-3. 2-3. Sparks Sparksalso alsoargues argues that that Rule Rule 60(b)(5) 60(b)(5) is is inapplicable
as it only applies to judgments judgments with prospective effect and the Estate never demonstrated
inequity. Id. inequity. at 3-5. Id. at 3-5. The TheEstate Estate counters counters that that the the delay delay in in obtaining obtaining the the probate court's approval
did not constitute lack of constitute aa lack of due due diligence. diligence. Pl. Pl.'s Reply to Def.'s Opp'n at at 2 (June 12, 2025). 2025). The
Estate additionally asserted that Rule 60(b)(5) 60(b)(5) does does not only apply to judgments judgments with prospective
effect and that the the court may grant relief "for "for any other reason justifying justifying relief' relief" under Rule
60(b)(6)- 60(b)(6). Id. Id.
II. 11. LAW AND AND DISCUSSION
Rule 60 allows the court to relieve a party from a Final final judgment judgment under under certain cedarn
Rule 60(b)(2) circumstances. Rule 60(b)(2) and (5) allow relief for for "newly "newly discovered evidence which by due
not have been discovered in time to move diligence could not move for for a new trial trial under Rule 59(b)" 59(b and
if "the judgment if been satisfied, judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment judgment upon which it is
or it is no longer equitable that the judgment based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or judgment
should have prospective application," respectively.
In applying the analogous federal federal rules, mies, federal courts have held that new new evidence must
have existed at the time of of trial. See In re Alcorn, 174 at 178 Alcorn, 252 B.R. 174 178 (Banks. (Bankr. D. Colo. 2000), 2000);
Travelers Travelers Cos. Cas. & Sun Sur. Co. Co. v. Crow Crow && Sutton Assocs., 228 F.R.D. Sutton Assocs., F.R.D. 125 125 at at 129 129(N.D.N.Y. 2005); (N.D.N.Y 2005),
Offenbach Demoulas, 901 F. Supp. Kettenbach uv. Demoulas, Supp. 486 486 at at 493 493 (D. (D. Mass. Mass. 1995). Under that definition, the 1995). Under
probate court's Order would not constitute newly newly discovered evidence because itit was obtained
after this this Court's Court's Decision and Order. Order. Additionally, the Estate fails fails to to meet meet the the "due "due diligence"
of the test because it did not obtain the probate court's approval as required by the plain prong of
language language of of 15 GCA §221(c). 15 GCA §22l(c). Therefore, Therefore, relief reliefisis unavailable unavailable to to the the estate estate under under Rule Rule 60(b)(2). 60(b)(2).
f' ] I i "
IUIIHQuNAL CV0409-24 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF Page 3 3
Turningtotothe Tuning thearguments argumentsunder underRule Rule60(b)(5), 60(b)(5), the the Estate Estate argues argues that that the probate court's
Order demonstrates that this Order this Court's Court's Order Order dismissing dismissing the the case case isis no no longer longer equitable. equitable. PL Pl.'s Mot.
Relief at 2. For Relief Sparks argues 2. Sparks argues that that GRCP 60(b)(5) only applies to judgments judgments with prospective
application and that the the Estate Estate must must demonstrate demonstrate inequity inequity to to receive receive relief. Def. 's Opp relief. Def. Opp'n to PL Pl. 's
Mot. at 3-6. Several federal 3-6. Several federal courts courts have have found found that that under under the the parallel parallel federal federal rule, rule, "[t]he standard
used in determining whether a judgment judgment has prospective application application is is "whether "whether itit isis 'executory' 'executors'
or involves 'the supervision of changing conduct or conditions.'" conditions."' Maraziti Maraziti v.v Thorpe, Thorpe, 52 F.3d
252,254 (9th Cir. 1995) 252, Twelve John Does v.u D.C., 1995) (quoting Twelve 1133, 1139 (D.C. Cir. D.C., 841 F.2d 1133,
Under that 1988)). Under that standard, standard, the court's order of dismissal without prejudice would not have
prospective application. Even ififthe application. Even the Order Order did did have have prospective prospective application, application, the Estate's receipt
of the probate of probate court's approval months after the the judgment judgment does not render the Order inequitable.
As such, relief relief is unavailable to the Estate under GRCP GRCP 60(b)(5). 60(b)(5).
Court considers if The Court if relief may be available under under Rule 60(b)(6), 60(b )( which states states that "any
other reason justifying justifying relief from from the the operation of the the judgment" judgment" may allow the court to relieve a
party from from a final final judgment. 60(b)(6). However, judgment. GRCP 60(b)(6).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
l=."' I
4=¢: 5 I t ' : i? ls 57=-f?L.?8§¥a. I
,"'=§J@;3~1 202i at JUL3· I £Hl§3= .».i'.8l*§* 01I P.M fO: o www? .1§_A , *-¢ l»~r E IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM
ESTATE ESTATE OF MIN JUNG JUNG SPARKS, CIVIL CIVIL CASE NO. CV0409-24
Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER DENYING vs. MOTION FOR RELIEF
SAMANTHA SAMANTHACHONG CHONGSPARKS SPARKS,s
Defendant. Defendant.
Citing Guam Rules of Guam Rules of Civil Civil Procedure Procedure 60(b)(2) 60(b)(2) and and (5), (5), Plaintiff PlaintiffEstate Estate of ofMin MinJung Jung
Sparks ("the Estate") moves Sparks ("the moves for forrelief reliefrom fromthe theDecember December6,6,2024 2024 Decision Decisionand and Order, Order, which
Defendant Samantha ChongSparks Samantha Chong Sparks("Sparks") ("Sparks") opposes. The TheCourt Courtdetermines determines that that the the Estate is
not entitled to torelief relief and andtherefore thereforeDENIES DENIESits itsMotion Motion for for Relief. Relief.
I. 1. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In In this action, the Estate sought sought to to set set aside aside aatransfer transferof of land land from from the the Decedent, Decedent, Min Min
Jung Sparks Jung Sparkstotoher herdaughter, daughter,Sparks, Sparks,alleging alleginga afraudulent fraudulentconveyance. conveyance.PL Pl.'s Con 's Compl. (July 12,
2024). However, However,ininaaDecember December6,6,2024 2024Decision Decisionand andOrder, Order,the the Court Court dismissed dismissed the the case,
finding that that the Estate Estate failed to follow followGuam Guamlaw lawrequirements requirements to to prosecute prosecute aa fraudulent fraudulent
conveyance, conveyance, specifically, specifically,because becauseititdid didnot notobtain obtainprobate probatecourt court approval approval to to pursue pursue such such claims.
The Estate seeks reconsideration reconsideration under Rule 60, 60, claiming claiming that that the the probate probate court court has now
approved the application to prosecute the fraudulent fraudulent conveyance. conveyance. Pl. PL 's 's Mot. For For Relief Reliefat at 2 (Apr- (Apr.
25, 2025). Sparks Sparksresponds responds that that the probate probate court's coir"r's later approval approval of of the Application Application did did not
constitute new evidence constitute new evidence under underRule Rule60(b 60(b)(2) )(2) because because itit was was "obtainable "obtainable with with due duediligence" diligence"
'. ]l'° ftMF\ \! H f\U@1uuw/H CV0409-24 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF Page 2
before the case was dismissed. Id. Id. atat 2-3. 2-3. Sparks Sparksalso alsoargues argues that that Rule Rule 60(b)(5) 60(b)(5) is is inapplicable
as it only applies to judgments judgments with prospective effect and the Estate never demonstrated
inequity. Id. inequity. at 3-5. Id. at 3-5. The TheEstate Estate counters counters that that the the delay delay in in obtaining obtaining the the probate court's approval
did not constitute lack of constitute aa lack of due due diligence. diligence. Pl. Pl.'s Reply to Def.'s Opp'n at at 2 (June 12, 2025). 2025). The
Estate additionally asserted that Rule 60(b)(5) 60(b)(5) does does not only apply to judgments judgments with prospective
effect and that the the court may grant relief "for "for any other reason justifying justifying relief' relief" under Rule
60(b)(6)- 60(b)(6). Id. Id.
II. 11. LAW AND AND DISCUSSION
Rule 60 allows the court to relieve a party from a Final final judgment judgment under under certain cedarn
Rule 60(b)(2) circumstances. Rule 60(b)(2) and (5) allow relief for for "newly "newly discovered evidence which by due
not have been discovered in time to move diligence could not move for for a new trial trial under Rule 59(b)" 59(b and
if "the judgment if been satisfied, judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment judgment upon which it is
or it is no longer equitable that the judgment based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or judgment
should have prospective application," respectively.
In applying the analogous federal federal rules, mies, federal courts have held that new new evidence must
have existed at the time of of trial. See In re Alcorn, 174 at 178 Alcorn, 252 B.R. 174 178 (Banks. (Bankr. D. Colo. 2000), 2000);
Travelers Travelers Cos. Cas. & Sun Sur. Co. Co. v. Crow Crow && Sutton Assocs., 228 F.R.D. Sutton Assocs., F.R.D. 125 125 at at 129 129(N.D.N.Y. 2005); (N.D.N.Y 2005),
Offenbach Demoulas, 901 F. Supp. Kettenbach uv. Demoulas, Supp. 486 486 at at 493 493 (D. (D. Mass. Mass. 1995). Under that definition, the 1995). Under
probate court's Order would not constitute newly newly discovered evidence because itit was obtained
after this this Court's Court's Decision and Order. Order. Additionally, the Estate fails fails to to meet meet the the "due "due diligence"
of the test because it did not obtain the probate court's approval as required by the plain prong of
language language of of 15 GCA §221(c). 15 GCA §22l(c). Therefore, Therefore, relief reliefisis unavailable unavailable to to the the estate estate under under Rule Rule 60(b)(2). 60(b)(2).
f' ] I i "
IUIIHQuNAL CV0409-24 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF Page 3 3
Turningtotothe Tuning thearguments argumentsunder underRule Rule60(b)(5), 60(b)(5), the the Estate Estate argues argues that that the probate court's
Order demonstrates that this Order this Court's Court's Order Order dismissing dismissing the the case case isis no no longer longer equitable. equitable. PL Pl.'s Mot.
Relief at 2. For Relief Sparks argues 2. Sparks argues that that GRCP 60(b)(5) only applies to judgments judgments with prospective
application and that the the Estate Estate must must demonstrate demonstrate inequity inequity to to receive receive relief. Def. 's Opp relief. Def. Opp'n to PL Pl. 's
Mot. at 3-6. Several federal 3-6. Several federal courts courts have have found found that that under under the the parallel parallel federal federal rule, rule, "[t]he standard
used in determining whether a judgment judgment has prospective application application is is "whether "whether itit isis 'executory' 'executors'
or involves 'the supervision of changing conduct or conditions.'" conditions."' Maraziti Maraziti v.v Thorpe, Thorpe, 52 F.3d
252,254 (9th Cir. 1995) 252, Twelve John Does v.u D.C., 1995) (quoting Twelve 1133, 1139 (D.C. Cir. D.C., 841 F.2d 1133,
Under that 1988)). Under that standard, standard, the court's order of dismissal without prejudice would not have
prospective application. Even ififthe application. Even the Order Order did did have have prospective prospective application, application, the Estate's receipt
of the probate of probate court's approval months after the the judgment judgment does not render the Order inequitable.
As such, relief relief is unavailable to the Estate under GRCP GRCP 60(b)(5). 60(b)(5).
Court considers if The Court if relief may be available under under Rule 60(b)(6), 60(b )( which states states that "any
other reason justifying justifying relief from from the the operation of the the judgment" judgment" may allow the court to relieve a
party from from a final final judgment. 60(b)(6). However, judgment. GRCP 60(b)(6). However, "courts "courts use use mle rule 60(b)(6) 60(b)(6) relief relief
sparingly 'as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice' and grant relief relief 'only 'only where
extraordinary circumstances prevent a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an
erroneous judgment." judgment." Merchant Merchant v.v Nanyo Realty, 1998 Guam 26 Inc. 1998 Really Inc. 26, 9, quoting US 1]9, US.11v. Alpine
Land & Reservoir Land Reservoir, Co., 984 F.2d 1047,1049 1047,1049 (9th (9th Cir. Cir. 1993). 1993). The Estate has not demonstrated
any extraordinary circumstances that would require relief relief from this judgment, judgment, especially because
dismissal was without prejudice. Accordingly, reliefisis unavailable Accordingly, relief unavailable under under GRCP GRCP 60(b)(6) 60(b)( 6) as
well.
J V". iRIGHvA 21 CV0409-24 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION MOTION FOR RELIEF Page Page4
III. 111. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Estate is not entitled to relief under GRCP 60(b)(2), (5), or )(2), (5), or (6). (6). The probate court's
Order does not constitute new evidence, and the Estate has has failed failed to to establish that this this Court's
Order of dismissal is inequitable. Thus, the Court DENIES the Estate's Motion for Relief. inequitable. Thus,
S0 SO ORDERED this 31 July 2025.
HON. ELYZE M. IRIARTE Judge,}~uperior superior Court Court of Guam
Appearing Appearing Attorneys Attorneys:: Michael J. Berman, Esq., Esq., Berman Law Firm, Finn, for Plaintiff Plaintiff Estate of Min Jung Sparks William L. Gavras, Esq., Law Offices of William L. Gavras, for Defendant Samantha Chong Sparks
I I ml FL it ll VHIQJ H WH.