Guardianship of Moylan

Superior Court of Guam·Decided June 15, 2021·No. SP0106-17·Unknown

Opinion

FILED

SUPERIOR COURT

OF GUAM

EU?' .5¥JN 15 PM 3* DE? CLERK OF COURT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM BY: --»~..*. ».

IN THE MATTER OF THE Superior Court Case No. SP0106-07 GUARDIANSHIP Related Case Nos. sp0104-07. SPOl05-07.

sp0107-07. SP0110-07. and sp0111-07 OF

YUK LAN MOYLAN, DECISION AND ORDER RE ATTORNEY'S FEES

An Adult,

In re Guardianship of Moylan, 2018 Guam 8 (Moylan III),reversed the SuperiorCourt's

prior decision denying the payment of attorney's fees for Richard Moylan's litigation efforts that

resulted in the return ofTCDs to the Wards, Francis Moylan and Yuk Lam Moylan. On remand,

this Court now considers the appropriate amount of attorney's fees for that claim. Moreover, the

same opinion vacated and remanded all odder claims for attorney's fees tim the trial court's July

26, 2016 decision related to litigation in In re Guardianship of Moylan, 2017 Guam 28 (Moylan

11). The Court now considers whether Richard may recover attorney's fees under the substantial

benefit doctrine for litigation eftbrts that resulted in a holding that there was no enforceable oral

transfer of property from the Wards to the present Limited Guardian, Lina Leialoha Alston

("Princess").

1. Background

Attorney Douglas Moylan is the grandson of the Wards and the son of Richard Moylan

In 2007, a series of guardianship petitions were filed concerning Mr. and Mrs. Moylan, Richard,

through Attorney Moylan, entered appearances and litigated various issues in:

o SPOl04-07 - Petition filed Princess and Francis L. Moylan, Jr, on June 22, 2007, over Mr. Moylan's person

OREGQNAL

SPOl06-07 DECISION AND ORDER RE ATTORNEY'S FEES Page 2

o SP0105-07 - Petition filed by Kurt Moylan on June 22, 2007, over Mr. Moylan's estate o SP0106-07 _ Petition filed by Kurt on June 22, 2007, over Mrs. Moylan's estate

O SP0107-07 - Petition filed by Princess and Jr. on June 22, 2007, over Mrs.

Moylan's person

o SP0110-07 - Petition tiled by Richard on June 26, 2007, over Mr, Moylan

o SP011l-07 ._ Petition filed by Richard on June 26, 2007, over Mrs. Moylan

The issues presented in these petitions were tried and then appealed in CVA08~016. In

2011, the Guam Supreme Court resolved various guardianship issues In re Guardianships of

Moylan, 2011 Guam 16 (Moylan 1). The Court incorporates here the factual and procedural

background discussed therein.

Following the issuance of Moylan I and Moylan II, Richard moved to recover his

reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In denying the motion, the Court found that under 15 GCA

§ 4101, a party must be a guardian in order to apply for attorney's fees. Dec, and Order (Jul. 26,

2016). Since Richard was not a guardian and did not satisfy any exception to the American rule

regarding litigation expenses, the Court found that he could not recover attorney's fees and costs.

Upon Richard's appeal, the Guam Supreme Court vacated the Decision and Order to the

extent that it resolved Richard's claim for attorney's fees based upon litigation subject to the

court's opinion in Moylan II. Moylan III, 20]8 Guam 8, The Guam SupremeCourt partially

vacated and partially reversed the trial court's Decision and Order and remanded the matter to

this Court,

II. Law and Discussion

A. The Scope of Issues on Remand

As an initial matter, the Court must determine the scope of the issues on remand. The

Guam Supreme Court instructs that "[o]n remand, a trial coin must comply with the mandate of

5 t HEEENA L , E sp0106.07 DEc1s1on AND ORDER RE ATTORNEY'S FEES Page 3

the appellate court. Thus, in determining how to proceed on remand, the trial court must examine

both the mandate and the opinion and proceed in accordance with the views expressed therein."

Town House Depot Stores, Inc. u Ahn, 2003 Guam 61] 16. The Guam SupremeCourt has further

cautioned that "trial courts are not to construe remand orders 'so narrowly as to prohibit the

court from considering matters relevant to the issues upon which further proceedings are

ordered." Moylan II, 2017 Guam 281129 (citing Lamb v. Hoffman, 2011 Guam 131122).

In Moylan Ill, the Guam Supreme Court mandated the following;

For the reasons discussed above, we VACATE that portion of the trial court's July 26, 2016 Decision and Order to the extent that it resolved Richard's claim for attorney's fees based upon litigation that was the subject of the court's opinion in Moylan ll, 2017 Guam 28. We REMAND those issues and direct the Superior Court to dismiss that portion of Richard's motion without prejudice or, upon final resolution of those issues, determine whether Richard is entitled to attorney's fees in accordance with the legal principles enunciated by the court in this Opinion. Additionally, we REVERSE that portion of the trial court's July 26, 2016 Decision and Order regarding the payment of attorney's fees for Richard's litigation efforts that resulted in the return of the TCDs to the Wards and REMAND the matter to the Superior Court so that it may calculate the appropriate arnowit of attorney's fees in the first instance.

2018 Guam 8 1]33, In remand proceedings, Richard indicated that the scope of fees and costs

that he seeks to recover includes:

o work associated with eftbrts to recover over $l.5M in life savings deposits to names of Wards alone

o recovery of real estate (the house occupied by Princess),

O defense of Judge Barrett~Anderson's determination that the Wards are entitled to recovery of monies (a loan) owed by F.L. Moylan Corp.,

o protection of the late FL. Moylan and Yuk Lan Moylan's civil liberties such as the sealing of their cases, and O legal work related to recover compensable fees and costs.

Legal Brief Re: 8/17/18 Supreme Court of Guam Mandate (Dec, 2, 2019).

:0

""*~

F'il*e"*im 5 I.

£"i§L.3l§*~¢~§L,,.

r. s 1 l I

SP0106-07 DECISION AND ORDER RE ATTORNEY'S FEES Page 4

Moylan 111 instructs this Court to calculate the appropriate amount of attorney's fees

associated with Richard's efforts that resulted in the return of the TCDs to the Wards.

Furthermore, Moylan III directs this Court to review Richard's litigation efforts: (i) in

maintaining title in the name of the Wards to the residence where Princess currently resides, and

(ii) in recovering shareholder loans payable to the Wards--in other words, the two issues

addressed in Moylan II. Since no further action has been taken on these issues, the Coup finds

that both are ripe for the Court to determine whether Richard is entitled to attorney's fees in

accordance with the legal principles enunciated by Moylan III.

As to other issues, Richard does not specify which issue he seeks review for his efforts to

protect the Wards' civil liberties. He submits billing entries for work done in association with

his litigation efforts to unseal all guardianship records, see Moylan L 2011 Guam 16 1]55 and

Order (Jan. 24, 2012), and his efforts to contest the appointment of Princess as a special guardian

for which she failed to have adequate notice, see Moylan V, 2018 Guam 21. However, Richard

fails to present the Court with a legal argument regarding the award of attorney fees for these

issues. Accordingly, the Court declines to consider whether to award Richard attorney's fees for

his efforts to unseal all guardianship records and contest the appointment of Princess as a special

guardian.

Richard also seeks attorney fees for his efforts to recover compensable fees and costs.

Again, he fails to present to the Court a legal argument as to why it should award him attorney

fees. Since this issue also falls outside the scope of the Moylan III mandate, the Court declines

to consider it here.

In sum, the Court strictly complies with the scope outlined in Moylan III-~that is, whether

the substantial benefit doctrine entitles Richard to an award of attorney's fees for his litigation

1 e

QRGE

a A z E

e

SPOl06-07 DECISION AND ORDER RE ATTORNEY'S FEES Page 5

efforts: (i) in maintaining title in the name of the Wards to the residence where Princess currently

resides, and (ii) in recovering shareholder loans payable to the Wards. The Court will also

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

Guardianship of Moylan, (superctguam 2021).

Guardianship of Moylan (Guardianship of Moylan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Blum v. Stenson
465 U.S. 886 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Webb v. County Board of Education
471 U.S. 234 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Mellus v. Mellus
8 P. 1 (California Supreme Court, 1885)
Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.
526 F.2d 67 (Ninth Circuit, 1975)