Herradura v. Herradura

Opinion

162!~ OCT - 7 tt'H 12= 12 1 CLERr( OF COURT

2 3

4

5

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7 BONIE JUNIORPINAULA HERRADURA, CIVIL CASE NO. CV1375-19 8 Plaintiff,

9 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 10 RE: OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY JONIE CRISOSTOMO HERRADURA, 11

12 Defendant.

13 INTRODUCTION

14 This matter came before the Honorable John C. Terlaje on July 16, 2024 for a Status 15

16 Hearing. Attorney William Gavras represents Plaintiff Bouie Junior Pinaula Herrad ura

17 ("Plaintiff') and Attorney William Pole represents Defendant Jonie Crisostomo Herradura

18 ("Defendant"). Having reviewed the relevant law and authorities, the Court now issues the

19 following decision and order regarding the ownership of the property at issue in this case. 20

21 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

22 '

This matter involves a dispute over the ownership of a parcel of real property. Plaintiff 23 seeks to quiet title to certain real property, more particularly described as follows: 24 Lot No. 23, Block No. 19, Tract 232, Municipality ofSinajana, Guam, Urban, as said lot 25 is marked and designated on Map Drawing No. Subdivision of Tract 232, recorded on 26 27 Decision and Order Re: Ownership of Property Case No. CV1375-l 9, Bonie Junior Pinaula Herradura v. Jonie Crisostomo Herradura 1 June 26, 1980 in the Department of Land Management, Government of Guam, under

2 Instrument Number 312990 (hereinafter, the "Property"'). 3 Complaint to Quiet Title at ,r 4 (Dec. 4, 2019).

4 The Plaintiff claims title to the Property pursuant to a deed dated March 21, 2018, from 5 Bonie J. Herradurapurportedlyrecorded under Document No. 919551 in the Department of Land 6 Management, Government of Guam. Compl. ,r,r 4, 5. On the other hand, the Defendant disputes 7

8 the Plaintiffs claim of ownership of the Property, and claims an interest in the Property as a

9 beneficiary of the BMCHTrust ("Trust"), which Defendant claims continues to own the Property,

or, alternatively, as an heir to the estate of Josephine C. Herrera, who died intestate. Answer and

11 Counterclaim ,r,r 6-7 (Feb. 19, 2020). Plaintiff denies virtually all of the substantive allegations in 12 Defendant's Answer and Counterclaim.

13 As parties have come to the agreement that this case cannot move forward until the matter 14 of current ownership of the property is resolved, the Court must determine who has the current 15 right to possession of the property. This Order will discuss the following persons in relation to 16

17 the ownership of the land:

18 • Josephine C. Herradura (deceased)

19 • Bonie Mark Crisostomo Herradura, aka "Bonie Jimenea", husband to Josephine

20 • Defendant Jonie Crisostomo Herradura, child of Josephine and Bonie Jimenea 21 • Plaintiff Bonie Junior Pinaula Herradura, grandson of Josephine and Bonie 22 Jimenea through their son Bonie Mark 23 • Bonie Mark and Zany Herradura, children of Josephine and Bonie Jimenea 24

25 This Order follows the Status Hearing of July 16, 2024, as well as the additional briefing

26 filed by the parties on this issue, identified as Defendant's Brief RE: Ownership of Property and

27 Decision and Order Re: Ownership of Property Case No. CV1375-19, BonieJunior Pinaula Herradura v. Jonie Crisostomo Herradura Page 2 of7

Plaintiff's Brief Concerning Real Property in Question-Undisputed Facts and Conclusions of

2 Law, respectively, in the record. 3 II. LAW AND DISCUSSION 4 The Court's main purpose in this Order is to evaluate the validity of Defendant's claim of 5

6 interest in the Property as a beneficiary of the Trust, and determine ownership of the Property if

7 this claim is not valid.

8 A. Identification of Purpose and Beneficiaries with Reasonable Certainty 9

10 Under 18 G.C.A. § 65107, "a voluntary trust is created, as to the truster and beneficiary,

11 by any words or acts of the truster, indicating with reasonable certainty: (l) An intention on the 12 part of the truster to create a trust, and (2) The subject, purpose, and beneficiary of the trust"

13 (emphasis added). The Trust at issue was drafted by Josephine Herradura, who named herself as 14 Trustee. In 1992, Josephine Herradura deeded the Property at issue to the Trust through a 15 quitclaim deed. In 2002, Josephine Herradura executed a Notice of Termination of Trust which 16

17 was recorded at the Department of Land Management, and subsequently deeded the Property at

18 issue to herself and her husband as community property. A dispute regarding the validity of these

19 various documents and actions is the topic of this litigation.

20 Plaintiff has asserted that the "trust documents executed by Josephine failed to identify 21 the beneficiaries and purpose of the trust with reasonable certainty." Plaintiff's Br. Concerning 22

23 Real Property at 7 (June 24, 2024). According to the Defendant, the "most reasonable reading of

24 the filed documents is that the Trust has three beneficiaries including the Defendant."Defendant's

25 Br. RE: Ownership of Property at 3 (Jun. 21, 2024). The Defendant also states that "it would seem

26 that the beneficiaries take the property as tenants with right of survivorship." Id. 27 Decision and Order Re: Ownership of Property Case No. CV1375-l 9, Bonie Jimior Pinau/a Herradura v. Jonie Crisostomo Herradura l Under 18 GCA § 66501, a trust is extinguished by the entire fulfilhnent of its object, or

2 by such object becoming impossible or unlawful. In this case, the object of the trust is ambiguous 3 and remains in question, making it difficult to interpret when the object of the trust might have 4 been extinguished.

5

6 When interpreting an ambiguous trust instrument, extrinsic evidence may be considered.

7 Ramiro v. White, 2016 Guam 6, ,i 20 ("Extrinsic evidence is admissible to clarify the tenns of a

8 trust or remove ambiguities, particularly when there is a patent ambiguity in the trust instrument, 9 such as any ambiguities regarding the settlor's intent to create a trust. Extrinsic evidence, under 10 these circumstances, may be admitted but used only to explain, and not to contradict, the 11 instrument.")(quoting 76 Am. Jur. 2d Trusts§ 635)).

12

13 Extrinsic evidence in the fonn of the 1992 quitclaim deed provides the identities of the 14 beneficiaries absent from the trust document, but Plaintiff is correct that the deed does not show 15 how and how much of Trust assets were to be apportioned to each beneficiary. Defendant may be 16 correct that the "most reasonable" reading of the language in the deed would create three 17 beneficiaries as tenants with rights of survivorship, but there is no documentation supporting this 18 interpretation. Mere identificatiop. of possible beneficiaries in a later deed is not sufficient to 19

20 identify the "subject, purpose, and beneficiaries" of the trust with reasonable certainty as required

21 by the law. Therefore, Defendant has no evidence showing that he had a future interest in the

22 property through the Trust, or when this interest would vest, because this information was not 23 included in the Trust as it should have been. 24 B. Trustee maintained the authority to dispose of property in trust 25

26 27 Decision and Order Re: Ownership of Property Case No. CVI 375-19, Bonie Junior Pinaula Herradura v. Jonie Crisostomo Herradura 1 Under 18 GCA § 66502, a trust cannot be revoked by the trustor after its acceptance,

2 actual or presumed, by the trustee and beneficiaries, except by the consent of all the beneficiaries, 3 unless the declaration of trust reserves a power of revocation to the trustor, and in that case the 4 power must be strictly pursued. In this case, the parties seem to have been aware of this rule, as 5 there was at least an attempt to have the tennination of trust signed by the trustee and all 6 beneficiaries. However, the facts do not allow the court to detennine whether beneficiaries 7

8 actually approved the tennination as parties disagree on whether Defendant ever actually signed

9 the tennination of trust.

Defendant has also attempted to dispute which party is responsible for providing these 11 facts. Defendant argues that there "should be Burden Shifting analysis when reviewing a notarized 12 document," as there is on Guam when reviewing for undue influence. Defendant's Br. RE:

13

14 Ownership of Property at 6 (June 21, 2024). However, to this point, Defendant only manages to

15 make arguments about what the law should be rather than what the law is. Defendant has failed

16 to provide convincing evidence to the Court that the notarized signature is invalid, and the

17 tennination of the trust appears to have been clearly indicated by the trustee/grantor. 18 Furthermore, whether or not the trust was terminated is a question separate from the 19

20 question of whether Josephine was within her rights to deed the property at issue. Plaintiff argues,

21 ''whether or not the Trust was successfully formed and/or successfully terminated, the power to

22 convey and remove Property from any Trust continued to belong to Josephine, who had the 23 authority to dispose of it as she saw fit and was not required to specify that she was acting "as 24 trustee" in order to convey the Property to herself and her husband as community property."

25 Plaintiff's Br. Concerning Real Property at 6 (June 24, 2024). The Trust and the Property within 26 27 Decision and Order Re: Ownership of Property Case No. CV1375-19, Bonie Junior Pinau/a.Herradura v. Jonie Crisostomo Herradura the Trust are not equated, and, the Trust gave Josephine as Trustee, "full power and authority

2 to ... dispose of all or any part of the corpus or income of this Trust." Deel. of Trust, 3. Therefore, 3 Josephine was within her rights to deed the property to another without permissio'n from the Trust 4 beneficiaries and without terminating the Trust.

5

6 C. Intent of the grantor

7 Guam Courts have previously determined that the apparent intent of the grantor is 8 dispositive when resolving ambiguities of this nature. See Est. of Gogue v. Pangelinan, 2020 9 Guam 26,, 28 (explaining that extrinsic and parole evidence can be used to resolve an ambiguity 10

1l in a deed). In this case, the grantor tried to temrinate the trust and, on the same day, grant the

12 property to her and her husband as community property. As further evidence of her intent,

13 Josephine never created another instrument or revisited the trust to determine how the property 14 would pass after her death, presumably assuming that the community property, no longer in the 15 trust, would automatically go to her husband when she passed.

16

17 D. Chain of title to Plaintiff

18 Intending to terminate the trust and alter the ownership interests in the Property, Josephine 19 Herradura signed a termination of trust and, the same day, executed a quitclaim deed transferring 20 the property interest to herself and her husband as community property. Josephine and her 21

22 husband later deeded the property to their three children, Bonie Mark, Jonie Crisostomo, and

23 Zany, retaining a life estate for themselves. After Josephine's death, the .life estate transferred to

24 solely to her husband, Bonie Jimenea, which he gifted to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's father, Bonie Mark,

25 and Plaintiff's uncle, Zany, both deeded their 1/Yd interest in the property to Plaintiff. Therefore, 26 as it stands, Plaintiff now has the present right of possession through the life estate for the life of 27 Decision and Order Re: Ownership of Property Case No. CV1375-l 9, Bonie Junior Pinaula Herradura v. Jonie Crisostomo Herradura his grandfather, and a 213 rd future interest. Defendant has a 113 rd future interest that must await

2 the death of his father, whose life estate was transferred to Plaintiff. 3 Ill. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 Regardless of whether or not the trust was properly terminated, the Defendant has no current 5 legitimate claim to the property. Therefore, this Court determines that that current rights to the 6

7 property are held by the Plaintiff.

8 The Court also acknowledges that Defendant has a 113 rd future interest in the property,

9 after the termination of the life estate held by his father. 10

11 SOORDERED......,.,;;.Q_~~k___,;;.____ 4, ~_.......,;;;,2_02__

12

13

14 HO .TERLAJE Jud eri r Court of Guam 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25

26 ?.7 Decision and Order Re: Ownership of Property Case No. CV! 375-19, Bonie Junior Pinaula Herradura v. Jonie Crisostomo Herradura