it F12. E D squi rm U r t§iJ §23'
2£§25f1PR2l FH3:3: 14 2fl25 APR 2 I FM H, ¥3L@?.%E EET c@ii§iT
a¥=....,.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT O OF GUAM
KAMLESHK.K.HEMLANI, KAMLESH HEMLANI,individually individually and and CIVIL CASE CIVIL CASE no.
NO.CV1527-13 CV1527-13 in the name of and on behalf derivatively and in ofRADHI RADHI PURAN PURAN TRUST, TRUST, DECISION DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION MOTION FOR Plaintiff, RELEASE RELEASE OF OF APPEAL BOND TO THE RADID RADHI HEMLANI HEMLANI FAMILY TRUST vs.
MANU & ANITAMELWANI, JETHMALK.
MELWANI, JETHMAL K.
MELWANI,ISHWARP HEMLANI, VINODI. VIN & YOGITA V.V.HEMLANI, HEMLANI, RADHI RADHI P.p.
HEMLANIESTATE, PARAMANAND MELWANI ESTATE,RADHI'S RADHl'S FOUNDATION,RADHI PURAN TRUST, RADHI FAMILY FAMILY T-RUST,PACIFIC TRUST, RAINBOW, INC.,SAFETY RAINBOW, INC., SAFETY1st 1st SYSTEMS INC., PACIFIC AMERICAN AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE & & ESCROW ESCROW COMPANY, COMPANY, VASUDEV B. HEMLANI,P.D.HEMLANI P.D.
FOUNDATION, LTD.,CIDTRA FOUNDATION, LTD., CHITRA HEMLANI, SONA HEMLANI,PADI DARYANANI, DARYANANI, and DOES1-95, Defendants.
This matter This matter came before before the the Honorable Honorable John C. Terlaje on March 18, 2025, for a Hearing March 18, Hearing
on Defendant Radhi hiPuran PusanFoundation's Foundation's("Defendants")
("Defendants")Motion Motion for Release of for Release Appeal Bond ofAppeaI Bond to
\
the Radhi Rad hiHemlani Hemlani Family Family Trust ("Family Trust"). Present ("Family Trust"). Present was Attorney Attorney Thomas Thomas M. Tarpley Jr.
M. Tarpley
on behalf of Plaintiff, on P1aintiH; and andAttorney AttorneyBill Bill R.
R. Mann on behalf of Defendants.
Mann on Defendants. After Acer reviewing the reviewing the
record, relevant law, record, law, and and arguments arguments from the the parties parties the the Court Court finds finds that the the appeal appeal bond bond should should
be released to be to the the Family Family Trust, but should should be immediately placed with immediately placed with the the net net rental rental proceeds in in
care of the care of Chris Chris Felix at Century21.
Felix at TheCourt Century 21. The Courtalso alsofinds findsthat thatan an appeal appeal bond bond isis not not necessary necessary
for the currently currently pending pendingKamlesh KarnleshIII HIappeal.
appeal.The TheMotion Motionfor forRelease Releaseof Appeal Bond ofAppeal Bond to the
RadhiHemlani Radii HemlaniFamily FamilyTrust Trust is GRANTED.
is therefore G R NTE
PROCEDURAL R A L aand d FACTUAL F A C T U A L BACKGROUND BACKGROU
Plaintiff'sclaim 1. Plaintiff's claimininthis thiscase caseoriginated originatedininCV0758-12, CV0758-12,where whereDefendant Defendant sought sought a declaration of the Court Court that that Radhi Rad hiHemlani-settlor and trustee Hemlani-settlor and trustee of Radhi of Rad hi Puran Purau Trust-
Trustwas incapacitated, was incapacitated; Plaintiff alsosought Plaintiff also soughtthe the Court Court remove remove Rad Radhi Hemlani Hemlanias as trustee trustee and name Plaintiff as trustee.
Plaintiff as trustee. Verified Comp!. (June Verified Comal. (June 25, 25, 2012).
2. On 2. On July July 10, 10, 2013, Presiding Judge Lamorena Presiding Judge Lamorena issued issued aa decision decision and and order order granting Defendant's Motion Defendant's to Dismiss Motion to and ordering CV0758-12 Dismiss and CV0758-12 dismissed.
dismissed. Decision Decision & Order Order on Joint Mot. Joint Mot. to to Dismiss Dismiss (July (July10, 10, 2013).
2013).
Presiding Judge 3. Presiding Judge Lamorena Lamorenareasoned reasoned that that Plaintiff did not Plaintiff did not have have standing standing because Defendant was still Defendant alive and still alive and there was was no no finding finding of incompetence. Id.
of her incompetence. Id
4. On August On 13, 2013, Radhi August 13, hi Hemlani died, making Hemlani died, making the the reasons reasons stated stated for for the the dismissal dismissal moot. Suggestion moot. of Death, Ex. A (Aug.
Suggestion of (Aug. 28, 28, 2013).
Plaintifffiled 5. Plaintiff filed aa new new complaint, complaint, which whichcreated created case case no. CV1527-13, CV1527-13, and and the the case case was originally assigned originally assigned to the Honorable James James L.
L. Canto Canto II.
II. Notice of Judge Notice of Judge Assignment 13, 2014).
(Feb. 13,
On July 6. On July 14, 14, 2015, 2015, Judge Canto issued issued a decision and order granting the decision and the Defendants'
Defendants'
Motionto Motion to Dismiss Dismiss and and ordering ordering CV1527-13 CV1527-13 dismissed. Decision Order (July Decision & Order (July 14, 14, 2015).
7. Plaintiffappealed, Plaintiff and the Supreme Court appealed, and Court of of Guam reversed reversed Judge Judge Canto's Canto's rulings fillings and remanded the case for remanded for further proceedings. Kamlesh K.
proceedings, Kamlesh Hemlani uv. Anita & K Hemlani & Manu Manu Melwani, 2016 Melwani, 2016 Guam Guam 33.
33.
On remand, this case 8. On case was was assigned assigned to toPresiding Presiding Judge Judge Lamorena.
Larnorena. Notice Notice of Judge Assignment (Nov. 7, Assignment (Nov. 7, 2017).
9. Presiding 9. Presiding Judge Judge Lamorena Lamorena issued issued aa decision decision and and order order granting the the Defendants'
Defendants' Motions Motions for Summary Judgment and and ordering ordering CV1527-13 CV1527-13 dismissed.
dismissed. Decision & Order Decision & Order (June (June 18, 18, 2018).
10. Presiding 10. Presiding Judge Lamorena reasoned reasoned that thatPlaintiff Plaintiff could could not bring bring aa lawsuit lawsuit on behalf behalf of of the trust because because he he did did not not have have permission of at least one other co-trustee.
permission of co-trustee. Id.
Id
11. Additionally, 11. Plaintiffdid Additionally, Plaintiff didnot nothave have standing standing to challenge the MOS and the MOS and the distributions therefrom. Id.
made therefrom. Id
12. Plaintiff 12. appealed, and Plaintiff appealed, and as as a condition conditionof ofthat that appeal, appeal, he he was was required required to to post post an appeal appeal bond. This bond. appeal will This appeal willbe be referred referred to hereinafter hereinafter as as"Kamlesh "Kamlesh II."
13. The appeal 13. appeal bond was was initially stipulated to initially stipulated to be be $47,009.76, $47,009.76, which calculated as which was calculated as a percent of the the amount amount of of yearly yearly rental rental proceeds proceedsfrom from the theRadhi Rad hiPuran PuranBuilding, Building, which which were being held held by Century 21 by Century 21Realty Realty Management Management Company Company ("Century ("Century 21 ") until al") until the the building's true building's true ownership, claimed claimed by both the the Family Family Trust and and by by Plaintiff Plaintiff on behalf behalf of of the Radhi hi Puran Puran Trust, Trust, could could be determined.
14. The purpose of 14. of the the appeal appeal bond bond was was to to compensate compensatethe theFamily Family Trust, Trust,which which would would have been entitled to the accumulated been accumulated rental rental proceeds and and ongoing ongoing rental rental income after the income after Court dismissed Court dismissed the the case, case, for the delay delay payment to to the the Family Trust should Family Trust should the the Supreme Court uphold the Court the Superior Superior Court's Court's dismissal dismissal of of Plaintiff's Plaintiff's claim.
15. Plaintiff later added Plaintiff later added an an additional additional $27,422.36 $27,422.36 to to the the appeal bond to cover cover the 6-month period between period between January January and and August August 2020, 2020, but but did did not not make make any any payments payments after after that.
that. The The total amount of the appeal appeal bond bond was was therefore therefore $74,432.12.
$74,432.l2.
The Supreme 16. The Supreme Court Court of of Guam Guam atiirmed affirmedthe the dismissal dismissal for for lack lackof ofstanding standing against against the named estates named estates or or trusts, trusts,reversed reversedthe thedismissal dismissalfor forlack lackof of standing standing against against the theindividual individual defendants, and remanded the the case case for for further further proceedings. Kamlesh K. Hemlani proceedings. Kamlesh Hemlaniv.
v. Anita & Manu a 2021 Guam Melwani, 2021 Melwani, Guam 26.
17. On May 17. 31, 2023, May 31, 2023, the case case was was assigned assigned to to Judge JudgeJohn John C.
C. Terlaje.
Terlaje.Notice Notice of Judge Assignment (May 31, Assignment (May 31, 2023).
18. On December 30, 18. 30, 2022, 2022,the theRadhi Rad hiHemlani HemlaniFamily Family Trust Trust ("Family Trust") moved ("Family Trust") moved to release the the appeal appealbond bondto tothe theFamily Family Trust.
Trust.Motion Release of Appeal Motion for Release Bond to Appeal Bond to Rad Radhi hi Hemlani Family Hemlani FamilyTrust Trust(December (December30, 30, 2022).
2022).
19. Plaintiff 19. responded to Plaintiff responded to this this Motion by filing Motion by filing its its Opposition Oppositionon onJanuary January 26, 26, 2023, 2023, and further requesting that "because "because the appeal appeal is over, the the appeal appeal bond bond should be released to Plaintiff... "Plaintiff's Plaintiff..." Plaintiff'sOpposition OppositiontotoMotion MotionforforRelease Release0fAppea1 of Appeal Bond Bondto to "The "The Rad Radhi hi Hemlani Family Hemlani FamilyTrust Trust(January (January 26, 26, 2023).
2023).
20. The Radhi hi Hemlani Hemlaui Family Trust replied Family Trust replied on on February 9, 2023, 2023, claiming claiming that that "Kamlesh "Kamlesh no longer has a claim against the Family longer Trust, and Family Trust, and the Family Trust isis entitled Family Trust entitled to to the the appeal appeal bond posted bond posted by by Kamlesh."
Kamlesh." Reply Reply of of the theRadhi Radii Hemlani Family FamilyTrust Trust to to the Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Opposition to Opposition to Motion Motionfor for Release Release of ofAppeal Appeal Bond Bond(February (February 9, 9, 2023).
2023).
21. On December 4, 4, 2025, 2025,the theCourt Courtpublished publishedaadecision decisiondismissing dismissingPlaintiffKamlesh's Plaintiff Kamlesh's case. Kamlesh case. Kamlesh filed an appeal appeal to to this thisdismissal dismissalon onDecember December 11, ll, 2025, which appeal shall which appeal shall be referred to be to hereinafter hereinafter as as"Kamlesh "Kamlesh III."
III."
22. At At the Hearing held held on on February February 10, 10, 2025, the the Court Court addressed addressed counsel counsel with with four questions based on the the parties'
parties' filings regarding the appeal filings regarding appeal bond.
23. Each 23. Each party filed its responses filed its responses to the Court's questions on February February 24, 2025, and Responses/Oppositions to Responses/Oppositions to the other party's parly's filing filing on March 4, 2025.
March 4,
24. At At the Motion Hearingheld Motion Hearing heldon onMarch March18, 18,2025, 2025,the theparties parties gave gave arguments arguments and and brought up an up an additional issue for additional issue for the the Court Court to to consider consider regarding regarding whether whether there there should should be an appeal bond for the current appeal current Kamlesh Kamlesh III appeal.
25. The The parties informed informed the Court Court that net net rental rentalproceeds proceedsare arestill stillin inthe thecare careof ofChris ChrisFelix Felix at Century21, 21, and and that that both parties have agreed agreed to to nearly nearly all all the money money being being invested.
Therefore, these funds funds are are currently currently earning interestatat aa rate eating interest rate of of 4.3%.
26. Mr. Mann Mann argued argued that this this 4.3% 4.3% is is insufficient and there insuiiicient and be an appeal there should still be appeal bond because the previous because previous appeal appeal bond bond was was set setat at6% 6%interest.
interest.Mr.
Mr.Tarpley disagreed, stating Talley disagreed, that the the agreement agreementof of6% 6%only only applied applied to the Kamlesh Karnlesh II appeal, and a bond bond was not necessary because the necessary because themoney money is is now now being being invested, invested, where where itit was was not not during during the the Kamlesh Kamlesh II appeal.
27. The Court took The Court took the the matter under under advisement advisement on on March 18, 2025.
March 18,
DISCUSSION ON
Guam Rule Guam Rule of ofCivil CivilProcedure Procedure62(d)
62(d)provides providesthat that"[w]hen "[w ]henan anappeal appeal isis taken, taken, the
appellant by appellant by giving giving aa supersedes supersedeasbond bondmay mayobtain obtaina astay._. The bond stay... The bond may may be be given givenat at or or after after the the
time of time offiling the notice filingthe notice ofofappeal appeal or or of ofprocuring procuringthe the order order allowing allowingthe the appeal...
appeal... The The stay stay is
effective when the supersedeas supersedes bond is approved by the the court."
court."AA supersedeas supersedes bond is designed
"to protect "to protect the the prevailing prevailing plaintiff from the plaintiE from the risk risk of ofaa later later uncollectible judgment and uncollectible judgment and to
compensate for delay compensate for delay in in the theentry entryof ofthe thefinal judgment."J.J.
finaljudgment." JJ Moving Moving Services, Services, Inc.
Inc. v.u Sanko
Bussan (Guam) Busman ,r (citing NL.R.B.
(Guam) Co., Ltd., 1998 Guam 191139 (citing Westphal, 859, F.2d 818, 819 N.L.R.B. v.v. Masqahal,
(9th (9th Cir. 1988)).
1988)). If the judgment is affirmed the judgment affirmed or or the the appeal appeal dismissed, dismissed, the the bond bond can can be be used used to to
satisfy satisfy the judgment debt.
the judgment debt.Id.
Id Upon Upon the the posting posting of of aa supersedes supersedeas bond bond in in accordance accordance with with the the prescribed rules, prescribed rules, the the appellant may stay appellant may stay the the execution execution of the judgment of the as aa matter judgment as matter of right. Id of right. Id
Rule 62(d) Rule 62(d) protects protects the the appellant appellant as as well as the well as the appellate, appellee, because becausethe thedeposit depositof of aasupersedeas supersedes
bond eliminates bond eliminates the the risk of the risk of the appellant appellant satisfying satisfy the satisfying satisfy the judgment, judgment, winning a reversal winning a reversal on on
appeal, and appeal, and finding that restitution finding that restitutionisisimpossible.
impossible.Poplar Poplar Grove GrovePlanting Planting and and Refining Co. uv. Inc.
Reining Co. Inc.
v. Bache VI Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., Halsey Stuart, 600 F.2d Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1189, 1191 1191 (5th (5th Cir Cir. 1979).
1979).
There are There are two issues issues which whichthe the parties parties have have asked asked that that the Court address. First, Court address. First, whether
the the appeal appeal bond bondfor forthe theKamlesh appealshould Kamlesh IIIIappeal shouldbe b¢paid paidtotothe Radhi the RadiiHemlani Hemlani Family Trust, or Family Trust,
to the the Plaintiff. Second, whether Plaintiff. Second, whether itit is is necessary necessary for Kamlesh to put Kamlesh to put up up another another appeal appeal bond bond for
the Kamlesh III appeal, Kamlesh III appeal, when when the the net rental rental proceeds proceeds are arenow now accruing accruing interest, interest,the lackof thelack of which which
was the was the original concern concern leading leading to to Kamlesh Kamlesh putting putting up up the the bond bond for the Kamlesh II appeal.
Kamlesh II appeal.
I. 1. The Appeal The Appeal Bond Bondisis Released Released to the the Radhi Rad hiHemlani HemlaniFamily Family Trust Trust
The Guam The Guam Supreme Supreme Court Courthas has recognized recognized that that "a "a trust trust is not an entity capable of suing or
being sued, being sued; the legally correct suit legally correct suit isis by by or or against against the the trustee."
trustee." Hemlani v.u Melwani, 2021 2021 Guam
Jr 37 (quoting 26 W37 (quoting.J.L.H. Tr., 2016 Guam .lL.H Tn, GCA §§ 65102, 24IfJr 29). Under 18 GCA Guam24 65102, "a voluntary trust trust is an
obligation arising obligation arising out ofaa personal out of personal confidence confidence in, in, and and voluntarily voluntarilyaccepted accepted by, by, one one for for the
benefit of another." benefit of another." In In the the decision decision on this appeal appeal (Kamlesh (Kamlesh II), H), HHemlani e v. Melwani, u 2021 Guam Melwani, 2021
26, the Guam Supreme Court Court made clear that that the theFamily Family Trust should never have have been been included included
as a party partyin in this this lawsuit lawsuit to to begin begin with.
with. This This presents presents this this Court Court with with the unique unique issue issue of of
determining whether determining whether to to award award an an appeal appeal bond bond to to an an entity entity that that never should have have been a named named
1
Plaintiff, and Plaintiff; and that does does not not technically technically "own"
"own" the property property in question..This in question. This Court Court ultimately ultimately
1 1 See See California California Civil CodeSection Civil Code Section2216.
2216. Under UnderCalifornia Californialaw, law,since sinceaatrust trust isis not not aa legal legal entity, entity, it "cannot sue "cannot sue or be sued, hold title to hold title to property, ohm own property, or or enter into into contracts."
contracts." See See 60 60 Cal. Jur. 3d Cal. Jur. ad Trusts 11 (2016). Trusts§ finds that that itit agrees agreeswith withthe theFamily FamilyTrust-because Kamlesh's claim Trust-because Kamlesh's claim against against the the Family Trust Family Tnxst
was dismissed dismissed on on appeal and the the bond bond was was created createdspecifically specifically for for the the benefit benefit of of the theFamily Family
Trust, the the appeal appeal bond bond should should be be paid paid out out to to the theFamily Family Trust.
According to According to the Guam Guam Supreme Court Court in J.J. Moving Services, J J Moving Services, 1998 1998 Guam 191]39, a ,r bond can bond can be be used to satisfy a judgment judgment debt when when "the "the judgment judgment is is affirmed or or the appeal appeal
Kamlesh's appeal dismissed." Kamlesh's appeal against against the Family Trust was Family Trust was dismissed dismissed when when the the Guam Supreme
Court dismissed Court dismissed the the Family FamilyTrust Trustfrom fromthe thecase case because because aa trust trust is not an entity entity capable capable of of being being
sued.
In his Opposition In Opposition to the Release of of the the Appeal Bond, Kamlesh Appeal Bond, Kamleshargues argues that that the Dismissal
of the Family of Trust firm Family Trust fromthis thiscase caseisisharmless harmless because because the the Family Trust was Family Trust was aa defendant defendant in name
and the only, and the charging charging allegations allegations found found in in the the Complaint Complaint are are "directed "directed against Manu, Don Don and
Rad hi who Radhi who held this this property propertyas asthe thereal realparties partiesinininterest." Opposition to PlaintiffsOpposition Plaintiff's interest." to Motion Motion for
Release of Release of Appeal Bond Bondto to the the "Rad "Radhi Hemlani FamilyTrust"
Hemlani Family Trust"(January (January26, 26, 2023)
2023) at at p. 5. The The
issue with argument arises with this argument ariseswhen when this this Court Court considers considers the thediscussions discussionswhich which led led to to Kamlesh Kamlesh
posting the appeal posting appeal bond in the first first place. Representatives of the Family Trust have Family Trust have asserted asserted and
Kamlesh has Kamlesh has not not disputed disputed that the the appeal appealbond bond was posted"only was posted "only for for the thebenefit benefit of of the theFamily Family
Trust, not any any of of the the other otherDefendants."
Defendants."Reply Reply of of the the Radhi Rad hiHemlani Hemlani Family Trust to Family Trust to the
Plaintiff'sOpposition Plaintiff's OppositiontotoMotion Motionfor forRelease ReleaseofofAppeal AppealBond Bond(February (February9,9,2023)
2023)atat p.
p. 3.
It is this Court's It Court's understanding understanding that that from the beginning, firm the beginning, the the appeal appeal bond bond was was created created to
ensure the the Family Trust would Family Trust wouldreceive receivethe the interest interest itit would wouldhave have accrued accrued on onthe the rent rent payments
the building for the if there building if there had not not been been aadispute disputeon theprofits.
authe profits.The TheFamily Family Trust Trust was was not not receiving receiving
interest on the net interest net rental rental proceeds proceeds during during the the pending pending of this appeal, appeal, and Kamlesh no longer Kamlesh no longer has has a
legal claim legal claimagainst against the the Family FamilyTrust, Trust, therefore, therefore, the appeal appeal bond, bond, which which was designed to compensate the the Family Trust for Family Trust for the lack of of interest while the appeal while the appeal was pending, should go to
the Family Family Trust. This Court agrees This Court agrees with Counsel Counsel for for the the Family Trust dart Family Trust that Kamlesh's success Kamlesh's success
against other Defendants Defendants should should not impact impact the appeal appeal bond bond that that was was provided provided only for the only for
benefit of benefit of the Family Family Trust.
however, that this litigation Recognizing, however, and the property dispute litigation and dispute at at its its core core is is still still
ongoing, the ongoing, the Court Court orders orders that the the appeal appeal bond should be bond should be released released to tothe theFamily Family Trust, Trust, but should should
be placed immediately withthe immediately with therest rest of ofthe the rental rental proceeds proceeds from fromthe the Rad Radhi Puran Building, in the Building, in
care of of Chris Felixat Chris Felix at Century Century 21.
21. Assuming Assuming that that Kamlesh Kamlesh does does not not succeed succeed in in his his current
(Kamlesh (Kamlesh HI)
III) appeal appeal involving involvingsome some of ofthe the Family FamilyTrust's Trust's trustees, this money trustees, this money will will eventually eventually
go back to go back to the theFamily Family Trust.
Trust. However, However, this this solution solution also also accounts accounts for for aa scenario scenario in in which which
Kamlesh isis successiixl Kamlesh successful on onthe the Kamlesh KamleshIII IIIappeal, appeal,and and ensures ensures that the "interest" money from "interest" money from the
appeal remains in appeal bond remains in the the same same pool as as the proceeds. In rental proceeds.
the net rental In short, short, if if some some Court Court in the the
future with Kamlesh future agrees with Kamleshthat thatthe theRad Radhi Puran Puran building building belongs belongsininthe theRad Radhi Puran Puran Trust Trust
rather than the rather than theFamily Family Trust, Trust, all all proceeds, proceeds, including including this appeal bond, this appeal bond, would would go go to to the the Rad hi Radhi
Puran Trust. However, Puran Trust. However, if if Kamlesh Kamlesh does does not not succeed, all proceeds, succeed, all proceeds, including including this bond, bond, would would go
back to the back to the Radhi Rad hiHemlani Hemlani Family Family Trust.
Trust. The The Court Court believes believes this this to be the most equitable
and the solution, and the solution solution most most likely likely to prevent future future conflicts.
11. II. No Bond is No is Necessary Necessary for the Current AppealBecause Current Appeal Because the the Rental Rental Proceeds Proceeds are are
Gaining Interest Gaining Interest
In In the Hearing held the Hearing held on March 18, on March 18, 2025, 2025, counsel counsel 50m from both both parties parties discussed whether it discussed whether it
would would be be necessary necessary for for Plaintiff Plaintifftotoprovide provideanother anotherappeal appealbond bondfor forthe the current current appeal appeal before before the the
Guam Guam Supreme ("Kamlesh IH").
Supreme Court ("Kamlesh III").The Therental rentalproceeds proceedsfrom fromthe theRad hi Puran Radhi Puran building building are are
currently currently being held by by Chris Chris Felix, Felix,who whohas hasinvested investedpart partofofthe the sum sum already, already, and and has has plans, upon receiving upon receiving permission permission from from both both parties, parties, to invest nearly all of of the remaining rental rental
proceeds. Investment of proceeds. of these these funds funds isis producing producing aa 4.3% 4.3% interest.
interest.Counsel Counsel for for the theFamily Family Trust
believes this believes this amount amount is is insufficient insufficientbecause because the the agreement agreement for the previous previous bond was to to provide provide a
6% interest to to the theFamily Family Trust.
The agreement of The agreement of 6% interest on the the previous previous appeal appeal cannot be binding on the culTent binding on current
appeal. The The pending appeal, Kamlesh Kamlesh HI, III, was wasnot notcontemplated contemplatedby bythe theparties parties at at the the time time the 6%
interest appeal interest appeal bond bond was was set set for Kamlesh II. It for Kamlesh It was up to was up to the theCourt Courtto todecide decideto todismiss dismiss Kamlesh Kamlesh
from the case, iifom case, resulting resulting in in the the Kamlesh Kamlesh III III appeal. The current appeal appeal is is completely separate completely separate
fromthe firm the previous previous appeal.
appeal. The The important difference between between Kamlesh Kamlesh IIII and and Kamlesh Kamlesh III III isis that that
the Kamlesh the necessary because Kamlesh II bond was necessary because the the rental rentalproceeds proceedswere were not not earning any interest eating any interest at at
during the litigation.
all during At this litigation. At this stage, stage, for the the timeline of Kamlesh timeline of Kamlesh III, III, the the parties have worked worked out
a way for the rental rental proceeds to to accumulate accumulate interest while being managed while being by aa third managed by third party.
party.
Presumably, the parties have chosen Presumably, chosen a competent competent third third party party who who is is investing investing the money money
to its maximum maximum potential, just as as the theFamily Family Trust would would have done but for for this this litigation.
litigation.
Therefore, ifif the the investment investment is generating 4.3%, 4.3%, the the Court Court does does not not believe believe would would be fair to
Plaintifftotoplace require Plaintiff bondofofthe placeaabond the difference differencebetween between this this and and the the 6% that was was provided provided for
the last last appeal.
appeal.The The Court Court sees sees no no established established reason reasonto toprovide provide the theFamily Family Trust Trust with a higher
interest rate rate than thanititwould would have have obtained obtainedbut butfor forthis thislitigation.
litigation. The The Court Court is therefore therefore inclined inclined to
agree with with the Plaintiff that the established Plaintiff that established escrow escrow contract fulfills the purpose fulfills the of the appeal purpose of appeal
meaning that a bond bond, meaning bond is is not not necessary necessary for for this this appeal.
appeal.Therefore, Therefore,the theCourt Court will will not require
Kamleshto Kamlesh to provide providean an appeal appeal bond bond to to compensate compensate for for lost lost interest interest on this appeal.
CONCLUSI CONCLUSION
After reviewing After reviewingthe therecord, record, relevant relevant law, law, and and arguments arguments from the the parties, the the Court Court finds
that the the Family Trust is Family Trust is entitled entitled to to the appeal appeal bond because the the bond bond was was provided provided for the benefit
of the Family of Trustand Family Tnlst FamilyTrust the Family and the Trustwas was dismissed dismissedfrom fromthe the appeal.
appeal. However, However, in in au an effort effort to
prevent further disputes, the Court prevent Court orders that these funds funds be be placed placed together with the the net rental rental
proceeds at issue in proceeds in this case at at Century 21. Furthermore, Century21. Furthermore, the Court finds that Court finds that an appeal appeal bond is
not necessary in the currently pending appeal because there not there is no no danger of either either party needing needing
protection or compensation protection or compensationfor forloss lossas as all allthe thefiends funds are are being being held held by by aa third third party party and and are
currently accruing accruing interest.
interest.The TheMotion Motion for for Release Release of Bond to ofAppeal Bond to the RadhihiHemlani HernlaniFamily Family
Trust is therefore GRANTED.
NTED.
so S O ORDERED, this RDE RE D, th i A\2'
\ .z_l r[25 \ 2.,5 n
' #_ .-k_ ~.'7 .;¢1'~' -.-o~ 'G »'i»,». ~`-u- .
, '.'., .<» if
J. - r »
Hon6i BLE J Hn=c.
,.. (C. TERLAJE
J
Superior~(;;o_µrt Judge, Supe r f j o i r t oof f GGuam
u