Horinouchi v. Horinouchi
Opinion
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2
3 MADELINE T. HORINOUCHI, )
)
4 Plaintiff, ) DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0673-11 5 )
vs. )
6 ) DECISION AND ORDER KEITH M. HORINOUCHI, )
7 )
8 Defendant. )
9 INTRODUCTION
10 This matter came to the attention of the Court presided over by the Honorable James L.
II Canto II on Plaintiff's Motions for Clarification, Reconsideration & Request for Stay 12 ("Motion"), filed March 14, 2013. Having considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and 13 the applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order.
14 BACKGROUND
15 In this divorce action, Plaintiff and Defendant do not have children and seek to divide 16 their property. On July 30, 2012, both parties appeared with their attorneys for a bench trial.
17 Plaintiff's counsel represented that an oral settlement agreement was reached and counsel read 18 the following terms ofthe agreement into the record: (Record Log at 9:17, July 30, 2012.)
19 Plaintiff shall keep and refinance parties' Kauai real property in her name and keep a 20 · Lex us vehicle. Id. Defendant shall keep and refinance parties' Lorna Linda real property in his 21 name and keep a Mitsubishi vehicle. !d. Plaintiff shall keep her 40lk retirement account and 22 frequent flyer mileage accounts. !d. Defendant shall keep his 40 I b retirement account, his 23 business named "Horinouchi Wellness Clinic", and his frequent flyer mileage accounts. !d.
24 Plaintiff shall remove Defendant's name from, and be solely responsible for, all encumbrances 25 on the Kauai property and a Chase credit card. !d. Defendant shall remove Piaintiffs name 26 from, and be solely responsible for, all encumbrances on the Lorna Linda property and all other 27 credit cards. !d. Any other joint accounts will be closed and the parties shall file taxes 28 separately from 2011 onward. !d.
Plaintiff's counsel explained that the parties shall split any gain or loss in the value of 2 the Kauai property. !d. Plaintiff shall have the property appraised by the refinance lender and if 3 its value exceeds $535,000 then Plaintiff shall pay Defendant one-half (1/2) of the difference in 4 value above $535,000. !d. If the value is less than $535,000 then Defendant shall pay Plaintiff 5 one-half (1/2) of the difference in value below $535,000. !d. Defendant shall also pay $3,000 6 to Plaintiff by check and $2,000 to her by promissory note. !d. Finally, Plaintiff shall keep the 7 Kauai property furnishings except for some of Defendant's personal effects that he shall specify 8 in a list at a later time. ld. 9 Defendant's counsel agreed to the foregoing terms and stated that the parties shall 10 memorialize the agreement together in a proposed interlocutory and final decree of divorce. Jd. 11 at 9:23. When a joint submission was not forthcoming, Defendant filed an interlocutory and 12 final decree of divorce on October 23, 2012. Defendant's interlocutory and final decrees of 13 divorce accurately represent the open court settlement agreement and further identify his 14 personal effects. On November 13, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to enforce the decrees. 15 Defendant argued that he relied upon the stipulated property settlement agreement and sent 16 Plaintiff a check for $3,000. Plaintiff argued that she did not consent to the agreement and that 17 the statute of frauds as well as 21 GCA § 41 01 require the agreement to be in writing. 18 On March 5, 2013, this Court issued a Decision and Order granting Defendant's motion 19 to enforce the stipulated judgment of divorce ("Decision"). Plaintiff filed the present motion on 20 March 14, 2013, which the Defendant opposed in writing, said opposition being filed April 15, 21 2013. 22 DISCUSSION 23 Plaintiff first requests the Court clarify its Decision and Order issued March 5, 20 13, 24 claiming it is unclear whether the Court's decision referred to an oral stipulation expressed by 25 the parties at a court hearing or to a "written Stipulation proffered by the Defendant that 26 Plaintiff refused to execute." (Pl. Mtn., at 2). The March 5, 2013 Decision by this Court 27 explicitly refers to an "oral settlement agreement" reached by the parties and read by Plaintiff's 28 counsel into the court record at a July 30, 2012 hearing in the presence of Plaintiff. (Decision, p. 1, Ins. 19-21 ). The Decision goes on to make five (5) separate references to oral stipulations 2 made in open court, and nowhere does the Decision refer to any alleged proposed written 3 stipulation. The Decision could not be any clearer as to what it is discussing. 4 Plaintiff also moves this Court to set aside the judgment on the basis of clerical mistake 5 under Guam Rules of Civil Procedure ("GRCP") Rule 60(a). While Plaintiff cites GRCP Rule 6 60(a) regarding clerical mistakes as a part of her motion, she does not argue that the Court 7 actually committed any clerical errors in its Decision. Further, the Court does not observe that 8 it made any clerical errors in the writing of its Decision. Thus any relief sought pursuant to 9 GRCP Rule 60(a) is denied. 10 Plaintiff further moves the Court to set aside its prior Decision on the basis of mistake, II inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under GRCP Rule 60(b)(l). Rule 60(b)(l) does 12 grant this Court the discretion to relieve a party from a final order for reason of mistake, 13 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Brown v. Eastman Kodak, 2000 Guam 30 ~ 32. 14 Relief under Rule 60(b)(l) is limited to situations where the error is simple mistake or 15 inadvertence such as overlooking controlling statutes or case law. In re Tai Chi Navigation 16 (Panama) Corp. S.A., 728 F.2d 699, 703 (5th Cir. 1984). The purpose of Rule 60(b)(1) "is to 17 permit the trial court to reconsider and correct obvious errors of law without forcing the parties 18 to engage in the machinery of appeal." US. v. 329.73 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in 19 Grenada and Yalobusha Counties, State of Miss., 695 F.2d 922,925 (5th Cir. 1983). 20 As to relief sought by the present motion pursuant to GRCP Rule 60(b )(1 ), Plaintiff does 21 not allege any sufficiently reasonable argument regarding mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 22 excusable neglect. Rather, Plaintiff advances essentially the same arguments made in her prior 23 written opposition to the enforcement of the stipulated decrees. In her instant motion, Plaintiff 24 does raise issues related to "frustration of purpose" and "legal impossibility"; however, none of 25 1 the arguments fall within the purview of GRCP Rule 60(b )(I).
26 1 27 This court notes the Guam Supreme Court holds: "Neither carelessness nor ignorance, ascribed to the party or party's attorney, may supply grounds for relief under 60(b)(l). A 'plaintiff's entire lack of diligence and attention 28 to the matter' does not constitute excusable neglect." Duenas v. Brady, 2008 Guam 27 ~ 20 (internal citations omitted).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Horinouchi v. Horinouchi (Horinouchi v. Horinouchi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.