Guam Econ. Dev. Auth. v. Crisostomo

Opinion

FILED

SUPERIOR COURT

OF GUAM

2025 NOV 1, PM ~: 57

2 CLERK OF COURT

4 3 BY: U-:

5

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

7

8 CIVIL CASE NO. CV0606-22 GUAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 9 AUTHORJTY,

Plaintiff,

DECISION AND ORDER

11 V.

12 DAYID W. CRJSOSTOMO DBA 13 MARIANAS IRRJGATION AND LANDSCAPE, 14

15 Defendant.

16

17 INTRODUCTION

18 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas for hearing on August 21, 19

20 2025, on Plaintiff Guam Economic Development Authority's ("Plaintiff' or "GEDA") Motion

21 for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Plaintiff is represented by Attorney Terrence M. Brooks. 22 Defendant David W. Crisostomo, doing business as Marianas Irrigation and Landscape 23 ("Defendant"), appeared pro se. This motion presents a narrow question: whether the Promissor:

24 Note's fee clause entitles GEDA to recover the reasonable attorney's fees and costs it incurrec 25

26 enforcing its judgment-and if so, in what amount. It does not reopen the merits of the default o

27 the summary judgment already entered. Having considered the record, the law, and the 28 arguments of counsel, the Court issues the following Decision and Order.

Decision and Order CV0606-22, Guam Economic Development Authority v. David W. Crisostomo

BACKGROUND

2 On October 24, 2019, Defendant executed a Promissory Note and Security Agreement fo

3 a $25,000 loan with GEDA. See, Pl.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts, 1--4 (Sept. 13, 2023). Th 4 Note required monthly payments of $579.99 beginning December 5, 2019, with a final paymen 5 of $577.00 due November 5, 2023, and carried an annual interest rate of 5.375%. Id. at 5. It als 6 expressly obligated Defendant to pay "reasonable attorney's fees and costs of collection" i 7

8 GEDA was required to enforce the Note. Id.

9 Defendant made limited payments totaling $4,877.00, then stopped performing as o 10 March 2020. Id. at 7. During the COVID-19 pandemic, GEDA offered Defendant the chance t 11 apply for modification relief, but he never submitted a request. Id. at 8. GEDA sent a deman 12

13 letter on March 3, 2022, which received no response. Id. at 9.

14 On November 16, 2022, GEDA filed a Complaint seeking the accelerated balance, pre- 15 and post-judgment interest, and contractual attorney's fees and costs. See, Comp!., 10-13 (Nov.

16 16, 2022). On May 13, 2025, the Court granted GEDA's Motion for Summary Judgment, 17 ordering Defendant to pay the principal loan balance of $22,451.90, accrued and continuin 18

19 interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. GEDA filed the instant motion on May 19,

20 2025, seeking $7,591.08 in fees and costs. 21 DISCUSSION

22 In reaching its decision, the Court first outlines the governing law on fee-shifting unde 23 the American Rule and its contractual exception. It then explains how Guam's statuto 24

25 framework under 7 GCA § 2660\(f) adopts that exception, and why this case aligns wit

26 Fleming v. Quigley. Finally, the Court considers Defendant's default, his lack of opposition, an 27 the reasonableness of GEDA's requested fees and costs.

28

Page 2 of4

Decision and Order CV0606-22, Guam Economic Development Authority v. David W. Crisostomo

I. The Promissory Note's Fee Clause Controls and Entitles GEDA to Recover Its Enforcement Costs.

2 Under the American Rule, each party ordinarily bears its own attorney's fees. Alyesk 3 Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 247 (1975). Exceptions arise where fees 4

5 are authorized by statute, by contract, or in equity. Young v. Redman, 128 Cal. Rptr. 86, 9 I (Ct.

6 App. 1976). Guam codifies that rule in 7 GCA § 2660 I (f), which leaves "the measure and mod 7 of compensation of attorneys ... to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties." Gua 8 courts have interpreted this to govern fee allocation between litigants. Fleming v. Quigley, 2003 9

10 Guam 4 ,i 11 (citing Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal. 4th 274,902 P.2d 259 (1995)).

11 Here, as in Fleming, the contract itself expressly shifts collection costs to the borrower. 12 The Note's text unambiguously provides that Defendant must pay "reasonable attorney's fee 13 and costs of collection" if enforcement becomes necessary.

14 Defendant defaulted within months, ignored demand letters, and compelled GEDA t 15

16 litigate. Those facts satisfy every contractual trigger for fee recovery. The fee clause governs,

17 and GEDA is entitled to enforcement costs under Guam law. 18 II. Defendant's Silence and Conduct Concede Entitlement and Causation.

19 Defendant appeared pro se and filed no opposition to the motion. He does not disput 20 signing the Note, owing the debt, or agreeing to its fee-shifting clause. His silence operates as 21

22 concession that GEDA's fees were incurred solely to enforce the contract. GEDA's counse

23 submitted detailed billing records reflecting the tasks performed and the time reasonabl 24 expended. Defendant's non-response and the undisputed record leave the Court no basis t 25 question either entitlement or causation.

26

27 III. The Requested Fees Are Reasonable and Compensate Enforcement.

28

Page 3 of 4

Decision and Order CV0606-22, Guam Economic Development Authority v. David W. Crisostomo

GEDA requests $7,591.08 in attorney's fees and costs, supported by sworn declaratio

2 and itemized time entries. The Court finds the hours expended and rates charged to be withi

3 reasonable market norms for this jurisdiction and proportionate to the complexity of th 4 enforcement action.

5 The record confirms that every billed hour advanced enforcement efforts-<lraftin 6 pleadings, preparing the summary-judgment motion, and pursuing post-judgment collection.

7

8 None of the work was duplicative or excessive. The Court therefore finds the requested amoun

9 both reasonable and contractually authorized. 10 CONCLUSION

II Because the Promissory Note expressly authorizes fee-shifting, Defendant defaulted o 12

13 his payment obligations, and GEDA's requested fees are reasonable and necessary to

14 enforcement, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Defendant is 15 hereby ordered to pay Plaintiff attorney's fees and costs in the total amount of $7,591.08.

16

17

::

NOV 19 2025

IT IS SO ORDERED _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~--~52:'% ---

20 ·,- ._:-'c· .-

. .-' ' :::::.

21 HONO~~LK_ARi'~JJR R. BARCINAS 22 Judge, Superior

- - -Co1Jrt

_.. , .

of Guam

.: .

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page4of4