FLED SUPERIUR COURT 1 OF GUAM 2 7ggy3 pj 3:15
CLERKJ
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF GUAM
8 ) Probate Case No. PRO131-13 9 ) IN THE MATrER OF THE ESTATE ) 10 OF 11 ) ALFONSO FRANCISCO ESCAMnLA, ) DECISION & ORDER
12 ) Deceased. ) 13 ) 14 ) 15
16 INTRODUCTION 17 This matter came before the Honorable Michael J. Bordallo on Administratrix Cynthia 18 Ecube’s Petition for Preliminary Distribution. Attorney Cynthia Ecube is the Administratrix 19 20 for the Estate of Alfonso Francisco Escamilla. Attorney Jacqueline Terlaje represents heirs
21 Lawrence P. Escamilla, Andrew Escamilla, Alfonso J. Escamilla, Giana Escamilla, Geinma 22 Babauta, Patrick Escamilla, Julia McDonald, Lorena Cabrilo, Joanna McDonald, and Brianna 23 McDonald (“Majority Heirs”). Attorney Georgette Concepcion represents heirs Lenora
McGeough, Rosalina Wirkkunen, CarmenAnne McGeough, Brendan McGeough, Jacqueline
26 Yu, and Benedict Reyes (“Remaining Heirs”). Having reviewed the moving papers,
27 arguments, record, and applicable law, the Court issues the following Decision and Order 28 granting the Petition for Preliminary Distribution.
Page 1 of 7 2 BACKGROUND 3 This matter arises out of Administratrix Cynthia Ecube’ s Petition for Preliminary 4 Distribution filed December 1, 2017. Tn this Petition, the Administratrix requests that the Court 5 6 grant a preliminary distribution of a portion of the monetary proceeds held in the Estate’s bank
7 account to the seventeen heirs in accordance with the decedent’s will. The Administratrix 8 proposes a cash distribution of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) to each heir, a total of 9 three hundred forty thousand dollars ($340,000.00). Additionally, the Administratrix argues 10 that certain heirs — Lawrence Escamilla, Patrick Escamilla, Andrew Escamilla, and Julia 11
12 McDonald — have received advancements from rental payments collected from the Escamilla
13 Apartments and other rental properties. The Administratrix further argues that these heirs 14 should not receive the full twenty thousand dollar preliminary distribution, but should be 15 credited for the sums they have already received.
On January 26, 2018, the Majority Heirs filed a Non-Objection to Preliminary
18 Distribution and Objection to Administratrix’s Determination of Advancement. The Majority
19 Heirs assert that the decedent did not intend for his inter vivos conveyances to be advancements
20 on distributions. The Majority heirs argue that there is no written evidence to support the 21 position that the heirs received advancements. On February 2, 2018, the Remaining Heirs filed 22 a Reply to Majority Heirs’ Objection to Administratrix’s Determination of Advancements. The 23
24 Remaining heirs argue that the money Lawrence, Patrick, Andrew, and Julia received should be
25 categorized as advancements because they received the money after the death of the decedent.
Page 2 of 7 1 ISSUE 2 Whether the sums collected by Lawrence Escamilla, Andrew Escamilla, Patrick Escamilla, and 3 Julia McDonald are advancements on the amounts they are entitled to from the distribution of 4 the Estate of Alfonso Francisco Escamilla.
6 FACTS
7 1. On July 29, 2010, while he was alive, Alfonso Francisco Escamilla executed a ten-year 8 Lease Agreement with Andrew Escamilla. Under the agreement, Andrew was to pay 9 Alfonso two hundred dollars a month. The agreement also allowed Andrew to sublet 10 the premises after obtaining the written consent of Alfonso.
12 2. On May 31, 2010, while he was alive, Alfonso Francisco Escamilla executed a ten-year
13 Lease Agreement with Patrick Escamilla. Under the agreement, Patrick was to pay 14 Alfonso one hundred dollars a month. The agreement also prohibited Patrick from 15 subletting the premises without obtaining the written consent of Alfonso.
3. In December 2012, while he was alive, Alfonso Francisco Escamilla conveyed a portion
18 of Lot No. 2145-1O5NEW, Block 13, Tamuning (formerly of Dededo), Guam (former
19 Pachinko building property) to Julia McDonald and her children. 20 4 Alfonso Francisco Escamilla passed away on July 7, 2013. The decedent left a will that 21 was submitted to the Court on September 26, 2013 and a codicil to that will which was 22 submitted to the Court on October 4, 2013. 23
24 5. The codicil contained a residuary clause through which the decedent devised the residue
25 of his estate to the following beneficiaries in equal shares: Lenora E. McGeough,
26 Rosalina Escamilla Wirkkunen, Julia Escamilla McDonald, Lawrence P. Escamilla, 27 CarmenAnne Escamilla McGeough, Brendan J. McGeough, Benedict J. Escamilla 28 Reyes, Jacqueline Escamilla Reyes Yu, Rena B. Escamilla McDonald, Joanna R.
Page 3 of 7 Escamilla McDonald, Brianna A. Escamilla McDonald, Alfonso J. Marston Escamilla, 2 Patrick Lawrence Marston Escamilla, Andrew Steven Marston Escamilla, Gemma Rose 3 Marston Escamilla, Gianna Marie Marston Escamilla, and “The Christian Endo 4 Supplemental Special Needs Trust.” 5 6 6. The Court has received no evidence that Alfonso Francisco Escamilla intended that his
7 conveyance to Julia McDonald or lease agreements with Patrick and Andrew Escamilla 8 were to be considered advancements for any distribution they would receive in the 9 future. 10 7. None of the heirs have acknowledged in writing that the conveyances made by Alfonso
12 Francisco Escamilla were advancements.
13 PRINCIPLES OF LAW 14 Gift of Testator as Advancement 15 Under Guam law, the Superior Court has the authority to determine questions regarding
advancements made or alleged to have been made by the decedent to heirs. 15 G.C.A. § 2909.
18 Further,
19 A gift before death shall be considered as an ademption of a bequest or devise of the property given; but such gifts shall not be taken as an advancement to an heir 20 or as an ademption of a general legacy unless such intention is expressed by the 21 testator in the grant or otherwise in writing, or unless the done acknowledges it in writing to be such. 22 .
15 G.C.A. § 2901. Thus, absent a writing demonstrating the testator s intent to make . .
23 advancement, gifts made during his life to an heir do not affect the distribution of the estate to 24 that heir. Other jurisdictions have considered the issue similarly. In re Marriage of 25
26 Williamson, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 699, 708 (Ct. App. 2014) (“By its very definition, an
27 advancement is a gift which is expressly stated by the donor to be a part of the estate which the 28 done would otherwise receive. Thus, an advancement, by its nature, constitutes a gift in lieu of
Page 4 of 7 1 a devise or inheritance.”); In re Estate of Soule, 540 N.W.2d 118, 123 (Neb. 1995) (“[Am inter 2 vivos transfer is to be treated as an advancement against the heir’s share of estate only if 3 declared in a contemporaneous writing by the decedent or acknowledged in writing by the heir 4 to be an advancement.”). Further, when a party asserts that transfers made by the decedent
6 before his death were advancements, that party has the burden of proving that fact. Pruner v.
7 Loveloy, 314 S.W.2d 651, 652 (Ct. Civ. App. Tex. 1958). 8
9 ANALYSIS
The Administratrix has petitioned the Court to grant a preliminary distribution of twenty
12 thousand dollars ($20,000.00) to the seventeen heirs of the Estate of Alfonso Francisco
13 Escamilla. Part of this request, however, is that preliminary distribution to four heirs be offset 14 by money they have received since the testator’s death.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FLED SUPERIUR COURT 1 OF GUAM 2 7ggy3 pj 3:15
CLERKJ
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF GUAM
8 ) Probate Case No. PRO131-13 9 ) IN THE MATrER OF THE ESTATE ) 10 OF 11 ) ALFONSO FRANCISCO ESCAMnLA, ) DECISION & ORDER
12 ) Deceased. ) 13 ) 14 ) 15
16 INTRODUCTION 17 This matter came before the Honorable Michael J. Bordallo on Administratrix Cynthia 18 Ecube’s Petition for Preliminary Distribution. Attorney Cynthia Ecube is the Administratrix 19 20 for the Estate of Alfonso Francisco Escamilla. Attorney Jacqueline Terlaje represents heirs
21 Lawrence P. Escamilla, Andrew Escamilla, Alfonso J. Escamilla, Giana Escamilla, Geinma 22 Babauta, Patrick Escamilla, Julia McDonald, Lorena Cabrilo, Joanna McDonald, and Brianna 23 McDonald (“Majority Heirs”). Attorney Georgette Concepcion represents heirs Lenora
McGeough, Rosalina Wirkkunen, CarmenAnne McGeough, Brendan McGeough, Jacqueline
26 Yu, and Benedict Reyes (“Remaining Heirs”). Having reviewed the moving papers,
27 arguments, record, and applicable law, the Court issues the following Decision and Order 28 granting the Petition for Preliminary Distribution.
Page 1 of 7 2 BACKGROUND 3 This matter arises out of Administratrix Cynthia Ecube’ s Petition for Preliminary 4 Distribution filed December 1, 2017. Tn this Petition, the Administratrix requests that the Court 5 6 grant a preliminary distribution of a portion of the monetary proceeds held in the Estate’s bank
7 account to the seventeen heirs in accordance with the decedent’s will. The Administratrix 8 proposes a cash distribution of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) to each heir, a total of 9 three hundred forty thousand dollars ($340,000.00). Additionally, the Administratrix argues 10 that certain heirs — Lawrence Escamilla, Patrick Escamilla, Andrew Escamilla, and Julia 11
12 McDonald — have received advancements from rental payments collected from the Escamilla
13 Apartments and other rental properties. The Administratrix further argues that these heirs 14 should not receive the full twenty thousand dollar preliminary distribution, but should be 15 credited for the sums they have already received.
On January 26, 2018, the Majority Heirs filed a Non-Objection to Preliminary
18 Distribution and Objection to Administratrix’s Determination of Advancement. The Majority
19 Heirs assert that the decedent did not intend for his inter vivos conveyances to be advancements
20 on distributions. The Majority heirs argue that there is no written evidence to support the 21 position that the heirs received advancements. On February 2, 2018, the Remaining Heirs filed 22 a Reply to Majority Heirs’ Objection to Administratrix’s Determination of Advancements. The 23
24 Remaining heirs argue that the money Lawrence, Patrick, Andrew, and Julia received should be
25 categorized as advancements because they received the money after the death of the decedent.
Page 2 of 7 1 ISSUE 2 Whether the sums collected by Lawrence Escamilla, Andrew Escamilla, Patrick Escamilla, and 3 Julia McDonald are advancements on the amounts they are entitled to from the distribution of 4 the Estate of Alfonso Francisco Escamilla.
6 FACTS
7 1. On July 29, 2010, while he was alive, Alfonso Francisco Escamilla executed a ten-year 8 Lease Agreement with Andrew Escamilla. Under the agreement, Andrew was to pay 9 Alfonso two hundred dollars a month. The agreement also allowed Andrew to sublet 10 the premises after obtaining the written consent of Alfonso.
12 2. On May 31, 2010, while he was alive, Alfonso Francisco Escamilla executed a ten-year
13 Lease Agreement with Patrick Escamilla. Under the agreement, Patrick was to pay 14 Alfonso one hundred dollars a month. The agreement also prohibited Patrick from 15 subletting the premises without obtaining the written consent of Alfonso.
3. In December 2012, while he was alive, Alfonso Francisco Escamilla conveyed a portion
18 of Lot No. 2145-1O5NEW, Block 13, Tamuning (formerly of Dededo), Guam (former
19 Pachinko building property) to Julia McDonald and her children. 20 4 Alfonso Francisco Escamilla passed away on July 7, 2013. The decedent left a will that 21 was submitted to the Court on September 26, 2013 and a codicil to that will which was 22 submitted to the Court on October 4, 2013. 23
24 5. The codicil contained a residuary clause through which the decedent devised the residue
25 of his estate to the following beneficiaries in equal shares: Lenora E. McGeough,
26 Rosalina Escamilla Wirkkunen, Julia Escamilla McDonald, Lawrence P. Escamilla, 27 CarmenAnne Escamilla McGeough, Brendan J. McGeough, Benedict J. Escamilla 28 Reyes, Jacqueline Escamilla Reyes Yu, Rena B. Escamilla McDonald, Joanna R.
Page 3 of 7 Escamilla McDonald, Brianna A. Escamilla McDonald, Alfonso J. Marston Escamilla, 2 Patrick Lawrence Marston Escamilla, Andrew Steven Marston Escamilla, Gemma Rose 3 Marston Escamilla, Gianna Marie Marston Escamilla, and “The Christian Endo 4 Supplemental Special Needs Trust.” 5 6 6. The Court has received no evidence that Alfonso Francisco Escamilla intended that his
7 conveyance to Julia McDonald or lease agreements with Patrick and Andrew Escamilla 8 were to be considered advancements for any distribution they would receive in the 9 future. 10 7. None of the heirs have acknowledged in writing that the conveyances made by Alfonso
12 Francisco Escamilla were advancements.
13 PRINCIPLES OF LAW 14 Gift of Testator as Advancement 15 Under Guam law, the Superior Court has the authority to determine questions regarding
advancements made or alleged to have been made by the decedent to heirs. 15 G.C.A. § 2909.
18 Further,
19 A gift before death shall be considered as an ademption of a bequest or devise of the property given; but such gifts shall not be taken as an advancement to an heir 20 or as an ademption of a general legacy unless such intention is expressed by the 21 testator in the grant or otherwise in writing, or unless the done acknowledges it in writing to be such. 22 .
15 G.C.A. § 2901. Thus, absent a writing demonstrating the testator s intent to make . .
23 advancement, gifts made during his life to an heir do not affect the distribution of the estate to 24 that heir. Other jurisdictions have considered the issue similarly. In re Marriage of 25
26 Williamson, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 699, 708 (Ct. App. 2014) (“By its very definition, an
27 advancement is a gift which is expressly stated by the donor to be a part of the estate which the 28 done would otherwise receive. Thus, an advancement, by its nature, constitutes a gift in lieu of
Page 4 of 7 1 a devise or inheritance.”); In re Estate of Soule, 540 N.W.2d 118, 123 (Neb. 1995) (“[Am inter 2 vivos transfer is to be treated as an advancement against the heir’s share of estate only if 3 declared in a contemporaneous writing by the decedent or acknowledged in writing by the heir 4 to be an advancement.”). Further, when a party asserts that transfers made by the decedent
6 before his death were advancements, that party has the burden of proving that fact. Pruner v.
7 Loveloy, 314 S.W.2d 651, 652 (Ct. Civ. App. Tex. 1958). 8
9 ANALYSIS
The Administratrix has petitioned the Court to grant a preliminary distribution of twenty
12 thousand dollars ($20,000.00) to the seventeen heirs of the Estate of Alfonso Francisco
13 Escamilla. Part of this request, however, is that preliminary distribution to four heirs be offset 14 by money they have received since the testator’s death. The Administratrix and the Remaining 15 Heirs argue that these heirs have received advancements on their bequests from the Estate. 16 With respect to Andrew and Patrick Escamilla, the Court has been presented with no 17 18 evidence to support a claim that the lease agreements made with the decedent were intended to
19 be an advancement. Under the agreement, the landlord (now the Estate) is to receive one 20 hundred dollars monthly from Andrew and two hundred dollars monthly from Patrick. In the
written lease agreement, there is no language expressing the decedent’s intention that the lease 22
23 agreement be considered an advancement. Additionally, neither Andrew nor Patrick have
24 acknowledged in writing that the lease agreements are advancements. Further, while 25 assignment or subletting the leased premises is conditioned on the written approval of the 26 landlord (and now Estate), this issue is not before the Court. Accordingly, because there is no 27 evidence that the lease agreements are advancements, the Court concludes that Andrew 28
Escamilla and Patrick Escamilla did not receive advancements. Page 5 of 7 With respect to Julia McDonald, the decedent made an inter vivos conveyance of a 2 portion of property to her. There is no evidence before the Court that the decedent intended the
conveyance to be an advancement on a bequest to Julia McDonald. Additionally, Julia 4 McDonald has not acknowledged in writing that the conveyance was an advancement.
6 Accordingly, the Court concludes that Julia McDonald has not received an advancement.
Finally, Lawrence Escamilla has received $70,885.84 after the death of the decedent 8 between 2013 and 2016 for “Management Fees” and “Management Gratuity.” Because these
payments were made after the death of the decedent and with Estate funds, the Court’s approval
of these payments was necessary. However, the Court did not approve these payments. As
12 such, the Court determines that the unauthorized payments made to Lawrence Escamilla serve 13 as a preliminary distribution to him. Thus, any distribution made to Lawrence Escamilla will 14 be offset by the amount he has already received as a preliminary distribution. 15
26 \\ 27
Page 6 of 7 1 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the Administratrix’s Petition for 3 Preliminary Distribution. The Court authorizes the Administratrix to make a cash distribution 4 of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) to the sixteen heirs for a total distribution of three
6 hundred twenty thousand dollars ($320,000.00). Because Lawrence Escamilla has already
received a preliminary distribution greater than twenty thousand dollars, the Court determines 8 that he is not entitled to the present preliminary distribution. 9
SO ORDERED, this J day of_____________________ 2018.
15 z4z HONOLE MICHAEL J. BORDALLO Judge/superior Court of Guam 16 SERVICt VA COURT BOX
17 Ifl& hereto was pIacet in the court box o1 18 YA?6 v 7;? 19
20 Deputy Cbi* SupeI Court of GE 21
22 SERVICE VIA COURT BOX I acknowbuge that a Copy 01 the 23 (NIgIflIJ hereto was peeu In the court box 01: 24
Page 7 of 7