Gagarin v. Gagarin

Superior Court of Guam·Decided October 16, 2019·No. CV0033-13·Unknown

Opinion

FILED

!n19 OCT I 6 ~12: I I

SUPERIOft~OU"i OF GUAM IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

HECTOR GAGARIN, ELIZA CASUGAY, Superior Court Case No .. CV0033-13 '1 t'->

BETTY KLINE, and NENITA LATAXES,

Plaintiffs/Counter-Claim DECISION AND ORDER Defendants, REMOTION TO ENFORCE FAMILY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT vs.

MARC A. GAGARIN and ROSALINA A. GAGARIN,

Defendants/Counter- Claim Plaintiffs.

The Court here considers whether an accounting is necessary to complete the parties'

settlement. After concluding that this Court may enforce the terms of the settlement agreement,

the Court finds the present accounting provided by Counterclaimant Marc Gargarin is not

adequate to finalize the parties' settlement. The Court also intends to appoint a Master to

complete the accounting. The Court thus GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Family

Settlement Agreement.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

There are two sets of siblings in this action: the Plaintiffs/Claimants consist of Hector

Gagarin, Eliza Casugay, Betty Kline and Nenita Lataxes; the Defendants/Counterclaimants

consist of Marc Gagarin and Rosalina Gagarin. This litigation concerns property owned by their

father, Edward L. Gagarin, who is deceased. See Compl. (Jan. 19, 2013).

ORIGINAL CV0033-13 DECISION AND ORDER REMOTION Page2 TO ENFORCE FAMILY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

To settle the family dispute, the parties signed a Settlement Agreement Release and

Waiver "which resolved all pending issues between the parties." Stip. J. ~ 2 (Oct. 7, 2014).

Under the settlement, the parties agreed to sell four properties. Stip. J., Ex. A at~ l(a). Upon

completion of the sale of three properties, Counterclairnants agreed to place into escrow all

monies received as rental income from the four properties since the date of Edward's passing,

"minus the cost of maintaining the properties, expenses related to maintaining the properties, and

the 25% administrative fees from the gross rental payments received since" Gargarin's death.

Stip. J., Ex. A at~ l(e). The parties defined "administrative" work to include, but not be limited

to, arranging for insurance, property maintenance, improvement and repairs, interviewing

prospective tenants and advertising for rent, collecting rent and evicting nonpaying tenants,

maintaining the business licenses, paying various taxes, and accounting. Stip. J., Ex. A at~ l(e).

Upon completion of all property sales, the proceeds were divided among the parties. Stip. J., Ex.

The settlement included a release: "All parties shall generally and fully release each

other from any and all liability arising from the relations and transactions between the parties as

herein provided." Stip. J., Ex. A at~ 4. They also released unknown claims: "Release of

Unknown Claims. The parties in making this settlement agreement, and particularly in reference

to the release and waiver included herein, hereby acknowledge and agree that there is a risk that

subsequent to the execution of this settlement agreement, the parties, each or any of them, may

or will incur or suffer monetary or other loss, injury, damage, or any of these, which is in some

way caused or effected by, related to, connected with the relations of the parties and their

business dealings, but which loss, injury, or damage is unknown at the time of the signing ofthis

agreement .... " Stip. J., Ex. A at~ 5. Acknowledging such unknown claims exist, the parties

ORIGINAL CV0033-13 DECISION AND ORDER REMOTION Page 3 TO ENFORCE FAMILY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

"intend[] by this settlement agreement, to waive the benefits of' 18 GCA § 82606, which states

that a general release does not extend to unknown claims. Stip. J., Ex. A at~ 5

The parties also agreed for the Court to hear any disputes over the subject matter of this

Settlement, and submitted a Stipulated Judgment which gave this Court continuing jurisdiction

until all settlement terms had been complied with. Stip. J., Ex. A at~ 11.

It is undisputed that all four properties are now sold. Following the final sale, Marc

produced an accounting. The Claimants challenge Marc's accounting as inadequate and also

challenge Marc's distribution of funds to a relative's wedding and for funerals, and payment of

taxes and attorney's fees.

II. LAW AND DISCUSSION

Guam courts apply traditional contract principles to the interpretation of settlement

agreements. Bias v. Cruz, 2009 Guam 12 ~ 11; Camacho v. Camacho, 1997 Guam 5 ~~ 30-35.

Hence, "effect must be given to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of

entering into the settlement agreement." Lujan v. Lujan, 2012 Guam 7 ~ 30 (citing Leon

Guerrero v. Moylan, 2000 Guam 28 ~ 8. Where the settlement agreement is committed to a

writing, this mutual intention of the parties should be ascertained from the writing alone. I d. To

analyze a writing, Guam courts "begin by looking at the plain meaning ... in order to determine

whether ambiguity exists." Hart v. Hart, 2008 Guam 11 ~ 20.

Counterclaimants rely heavily on the general releases, and particularly the releases of

unknown claims to estop Claimants from seeking an accounting. However, the parties also

agreed that there may exist disputes over the subject matter of the settlement, in which case the

Court has jurisdiction to resolve such disputes. The release therefore did not apply to disputes

concerning the parties' obligations under the settlement agreement.

ORIGINAL CV0033-13 DECISION AND ORDER REMOTION Page 4 TO ENFORCE FAMILY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This follows a body of caselaw which recognizes that courts have jurisdiction to consider

and address breaches of settlement agreements. See, e.g., Wagner v. Spurlock, 803 N.E.2d 1174,

1180 (Ind. App. 2004); Aro Corp v. Allied Witan Co., 531 F.2d 1368, 1371 (6th Cir. 1976) ("It is

well established that courts retain the inherent power to enforce agreements entered into in

settlement of litigation pending before them"); Brewer v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 649

N.E. 2d 1331, 1333 (Ill. 1995) ("A trial court has the power to enforce a settlement agreement

entered into by the parties while the suit is pending before the court."); Mantas v. Fifth Court of

Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 656, 658-59 (Tex. 1996) ("Where the settlement dispute arises while the

trial court has jurisdiction over the underlying action, a claim to enforce the settlement

agreement should, if possible, be asserted in that court under the original cause number.").

Some expenses in Counterclaimants' accounting do not fall under the category of

"administrative" work. When examined in its plain language, administrative work encompassed

work concerning the properties: maintaining and improving the properties, recruiting tenants,

and paying taxes. While this is not an exclusive list, the plain and reasonable interpretation of

this provision excludes non-administrative work. Non-administrative work would include, for

example, a payment for a wedding gift to "lsa" in 2018, and funeral expenses for relatives in

201 7.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gagarin v. Gagarin, (superctguam 2019).

Gagarin v. Gagarin (Gagarin v. Gagarin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The Aro Corporation v. Allied Witan Company
531 F.2d 1368 (Sixth Circuit, 1976)
Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals
925 S.W.2d 656 (Texas Supreme Court, 1996)
Wagner v. Spurlock
803 N.E.2d 1174 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2004)
Brewer v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
649 N.E.2d 1331 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1995)