IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 2 OF GUAM
4 In the Matter of the Estate ) Probate Case No. PR0136-06 ) 5 of ) ) Decision and Order 6 MASA TAKA MARUYAMA, ) Re: Motion for Reconsideration 7 ) 8 Deceased. )
9 ----------------------------) 10 INTRODUCTION II
12 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on November 30, 13 2011. Tricia Torres Cando leta, the prior Administratix of the above-captioned estate was 14 represented by Attorney Wayson W.S. Wong. Tamio S. Clark, Administrator of the above- 15
16 captioned estate, was represented by Attorney Kevin J. Fowler. After considering the matter 17 presented, the court now issues the following decision and order denying Mrs. Candoleta's 18
19 motions for reconsideration.
20 BACKGROUND 21
22 This matter arises out of a petition for letters of administration filed by Tricia Torres
23 Candoleta on November 17, 2006. Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Candoleta was appointed 24 l Administratrix of the above-captioned estate. On April 24, 2009, Seiichiro Maruyama and Mr. 25
26 Clark petitioned the court for removal of Mrs. Candoleta as Administratrix and remedial relief.
27 The court removed Mrs. Condoleta and appointed Mr. Clark as the successor Administrator for 28 the above-captioned estate.
I Mr. Maruyama is the son of the decedent.
Page 10f7 r'R\C'\\; U I 1"J\ \!~L f The court also found that Mrs. Candoleta fraudulently procured a sale of the estate's 2 real property to herself. Additionally, the court found that Mrs. Candoleta embezzled rental 3
4 proceeds belonging to the estate. Therefore, on August 18,2009, the court ordered (1) that the
5 Deed which Mrs. Cando leta obtained from Mr. Maruyama be declared null and void; (2) that 6 the promissory note in the amount of $126,778.45 which Mrs. Candoleta obtained from Mr. 7
8 Maruyama be declared null and void; (3) Mrs. Candoleta shall be liable for double damages
9 pursuant to 15 GCA § 2355 for fraudulently procuring the sale of Unit 101 to herself; and (4) 10 Mrs. Candoleta shall be liable for double damages pursuant to 15 GCA § 2625 for rental 11
12 proceeds she embezzled.
13 On November 5, 2010, the court assessed damages in the amount of $236,000.00 14 against Mrs. Candoleta for fraudulently procuring the sale of Unit 101 to herself. The amount 15
16 was based on the Unit's appraised value of $118,000.00, which was doubled pursuant to 15 17 GCA § 2355. On February 14, 2011, the Clerk of Court issued an abstract of judgment naming 18 Mrs. Candoleta the judgment debtor; the Estate of Masataka Maruyama the judgment creditor; 19
20 and the amount of judgment to be $236,000.00. 21 On February 17, 2011, Mrs. Candoleta filed motions for reconsideration for the above 22
23 mentioned findings and orders. More specifically, Mrs. Candoleta moves the court to (1) set 24 aside any and all findings, determinations and orders as to any fraud andlor embezzlement by 25 Mrs. Candoleta in the court's August 18, 2009 order; (2) set aside the court's November 5, 26
27 2010 order assessing a penalty of $236,000.00 against Mrs. Candoleta; and (3) set aside the 28 abstract of judgment issued by the Clerk of Court on February 14,2011. DISCUSSION 2 The above mentioned findings and orders are interrelated with each other. The August 3
4 18, 2009 decision and order however, lays out the court's initial findings for which the latter 5 two are based on. Thus, the court must first determine whether it can reconsider the August 18, 6 2009 decision and order. 7
8 August 18, 2009 Decision and Order 9
10 The court will consider the motion under the standard for Rule 60(b). Because Mrs.
11 Candoleta argues error, lack of jurisdiction and unjust result, 60(b)(1), (4) and (6) apply to this 12 case. Rule 60(b) provides, 13
14 On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 15 following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... 16 (4) the judgment is void; ... (6) any other reason justifying relief from operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for 17 reasons (1), (2), (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or 18 proceeding was taken. 19
20 Guam R. Civ. P. 60(b).
21 Rule 60(b)(1) grants a court the discretion to relieve a party from any order or 22 proceeding for reason of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, provided that the 23
24 party moves for relief within a reasonable time and not more than one year after the order was 25 entered. Brown v. Eastman Kodak Co., 2000 WL 1732522, 2000 Guam 30, ~32, (Guam 26 Terr.)(citing Pioneer Investment Serv., Inc. v. Brunswick Assoc., 507 U.S. 380, 394, 113 S. Ct. 27
28 1489, 1497-98, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993)). Rule 60(b)(4) allows relief from judgments or orders
issued by a court in excess of its jurisdiction, Alaimalo v. US., Criminal No. 96-00039, Civil
No. 99-00106, Civil No. 03-00044, and Civil No. 06-00034, 2006 WL 3313298 (D.Ct.Guam November 14,2006). A judgment is void only if the court that rendered it lacked subject matter 2 jurisdiction, lacked jurisdiction over the parties or if the court acted in a manner inconsistent 3
4 with due process. See Tomlin v. McDaniel, 865 F.2d 209, 210 (9th Cir. 1988).
5 Rule 60(b)(6) may be used to relieve a party from an order for any justifying reason 6 which falls outside the scope of subsections one (1) through five (5), Pineda v. Pineda, 2005 7
8 Guam 10, ~20, and Brown v. Eastman Kodak Co., 2000 Guam 30, ~14. Additionally, motions 9 made under subsections four (4) and six (6) must be made within a reasonable time after the 10 order or judgment. G.R.C.P. Rule 60(b). In this case, Mrs. Candoleta's motion was filed 18 11
12 months after the court's August 18, 2009 decision and order. The court notes that Mrs. 13 Candoleta's previous counsel was suspended from the bar for conduct in 2010 on February 8, 14 2011. Thus, Mrs. Candoleta had to obtain new counsel. Due to those circumstances, the Court 15
16 finds that the motion is therefore timely under Rule 60(b)(4) and (6).2 17 Having concluded that the motion may be properly considered under Rule 60(b)(4) and 18
19 (6), the court must now reach the question of whether the motion should be granted. Mrs. 20 Candoleta requests the court to set aside any and all findings, determinations and orders as to 21 any fraud and/or embezzlement. With regards to 60(b)(4), she argues that a Judge sitting in a 22
23 probate case lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to make any ordinary fraud findings. She also 24 argues that the court erroneously applied 15 GCA § 2355 to its August 18, 2009 decision and 25 order. 3 That section provides, 26
2 The court fmds that 60(b)(l) does not apply because the motion was filed beyond one year.
3 The court notes that this case was initially assigned to another Superior Court Judge. This court was not assigned
this case until August 31, 20 II. A personal representative who fraudulently sells any real property of an estate 2 contrary to or otherwise than under the provisions of this Chapter, is liable for double the value of the real property sold, as liquidated damages, to be recovered 3 in an action by the person having an estate of inheritance therein. 4
5 15 GCA § 2355. 6 The above statute seems to suggest that a separate action by Mr. Maruyama needed to 7
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 2 OF GUAM
4 In the Matter of the Estate ) Probate Case No. PR0136-06 ) 5 of ) ) Decision and Order 6 MASA TAKA MARUYAMA, ) Re: Motion for Reconsideration 7 ) 8 Deceased. )
9 ----------------------------) 10 INTRODUCTION II
12 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on November 30, 13 2011. Tricia Torres Cando leta, the prior Administratix of the above-captioned estate was 14 represented by Attorney Wayson W.S. Wong. Tamio S. Clark, Administrator of the above- 15
16 captioned estate, was represented by Attorney Kevin J. Fowler. After considering the matter 17 presented, the court now issues the following decision and order denying Mrs. Candoleta's 18
19 motions for reconsideration.
20 BACKGROUND 21
22 This matter arises out of a petition for letters of administration filed by Tricia Torres
23 Candoleta on November 17, 2006. Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Candoleta was appointed 24 l Administratrix of the above-captioned estate. On April 24, 2009, Seiichiro Maruyama and Mr. 25
26 Clark petitioned the court for removal of Mrs. Candoleta as Administratrix and remedial relief.
27 The court removed Mrs. Condoleta and appointed Mr. Clark as the successor Administrator for 28 the above-captioned estate.
I Mr. Maruyama is the son of the decedent.
Page 10f7 r'R\C'\\; U I 1"J\ \!~L f The court also found that Mrs. Candoleta fraudulently procured a sale of the estate's 2 real property to herself. Additionally, the court found that Mrs. Candoleta embezzled rental 3
4 proceeds belonging to the estate. Therefore, on August 18,2009, the court ordered (1) that the
5 Deed which Mrs. Cando leta obtained from Mr. Maruyama be declared null and void; (2) that 6 the promissory note in the amount of $126,778.45 which Mrs. Candoleta obtained from Mr. 7
8 Maruyama be declared null and void; (3) Mrs. Candoleta shall be liable for double damages
9 pursuant to 15 GCA § 2355 for fraudulently procuring the sale of Unit 101 to herself; and (4) 10 Mrs. Candoleta shall be liable for double damages pursuant to 15 GCA § 2625 for rental 11
12 proceeds she embezzled.
13 On November 5, 2010, the court assessed damages in the amount of $236,000.00 14 against Mrs. Candoleta for fraudulently procuring the sale of Unit 101 to herself. The amount 15
16 was based on the Unit's appraised value of $118,000.00, which was doubled pursuant to 15 17 GCA § 2355. On February 14, 2011, the Clerk of Court issued an abstract of judgment naming 18 Mrs. Candoleta the judgment debtor; the Estate of Masataka Maruyama the judgment creditor; 19
20 and the amount of judgment to be $236,000.00. 21 On February 17, 2011, Mrs. Candoleta filed motions for reconsideration for the above 22
23 mentioned findings and orders. More specifically, Mrs. Candoleta moves the court to (1) set 24 aside any and all findings, determinations and orders as to any fraud andlor embezzlement by 25 Mrs. Candoleta in the court's August 18, 2009 order; (2) set aside the court's November 5, 26
27 2010 order assessing a penalty of $236,000.00 against Mrs. Candoleta; and (3) set aside the 28 abstract of judgment issued by the Clerk of Court on February 14,2011. DISCUSSION 2 The above mentioned findings and orders are interrelated with each other. The August 3
4 18, 2009 decision and order however, lays out the court's initial findings for which the latter 5 two are based on. Thus, the court must first determine whether it can reconsider the August 18, 6 2009 decision and order. 7
8 August 18, 2009 Decision and Order 9
10 The court will consider the motion under the standard for Rule 60(b). Because Mrs.
11 Candoleta argues error, lack of jurisdiction and unjust result, 60(b)(1), (4) and (6) apply to this 12 case. Rule 60(b) provides, 13
14 On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 15 following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... 16 (4) the judgment is void; ... (6) any other reason justifying relief from operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for 17 reasons (1), (2), (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or 18 proceeding was taken. 19
20 Guam R. Civ. P. 60(b).
21 Rule 60(b)(1) grants a court the discretion to relieve a party from any order or 22 proceeding for reason of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, provided that the 23
24 party moves for relief within a reasonable time and not more than one year after the order was 25 entered. Brown v. Eastman Kodak Co., 2000 WL 1732522, 2000 Guam 30, ~32, (Guam 26 Terr.)(citing Pioneer Investment Serv., Inc. v. Brunswick Assoc., 507 U.S. 380, 394, 113 S. Ct. 27
28 1489, 1497-98, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993)). Rule 60(b)(4) allows relief from judgments or orders
issued by a court in excess of its jurisdiction, Alaimalo v. US., Criminal No. 96-00039, Civil
No. 99-00106, Civil No. 03-00044, and Civil No. 06-00034, 2006 WL 3313298 (D.Ct.Guam November 14,2006). A judgment is void only if the court that rendered it lacked subject matter 2 jurisdiction, lacked jurisdiction over the parties or if the court acted in a manner inconsistent 3
4 with due process. See Tomlin v. McDaniel, 865 F.2d 209, 210 (9th Cir. 1988).
5 Rule 60(b)(6) may be used to relieve a party from an order for any justifying reason 6 which falls outside the scope of subsections one (1) through five (5), Pineda v. Pineda, 2005 7
8 Guam 10, ~20, and Brown v. Eastman Kodak Co., 2000 Guam 30, ~14. Additionally, motions 9 made under subsections four (4) and six (6) must be made within a reasonable time after the 10 order or judgment. G.R.C.P. Rule 60(b). In this case, Mrs. Candoleta's motion was filed 18 11
12 months after the court's August 18, 2009 decision and order. The court notes that Mrs. 13 Candoleta's previous counsel was suspended from the bar for conduct in 2010 on February 8, 14 2011. Thus, Mrs. Candoleta had to obtain new counsel. Due to those circumstances, the Court 15
16 finds that the motion is therefore timely under Rule 60(b)(4) and (6).2 17 Having concluded that the motion may be properly considered under Rule 60(b)(4) and 18
19 (6), the court must now reach the question of whether the motion should be granted. Mrs. 20 Candoleta requests the court to set aside any and all findings, determinations and orders as to 21 any fraud and/or embezzlement. With regards to 60(b)(4), she argues that a Judge sitting in a 22
23 probate case lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to make any ordinary fraud findings. She also 24 argues that the court erroneously applied 15 GCA § 2355 to its August 18, 2009 decision and 25 order. 3 That section provides, 26
2 The court fmds that 60(b)(l) does not apply because the motion was filed beyond one year.
3 The court notes that this case was initially assigned to another Superior Court Judge. This court was not assigned
this case until August 31, 20 II. A personal representative who fraudulently sells any real property of an estate 2 contrary to or otherwise than under the provisions of this Chapter, is liable for double the value of the real property sold, as liquidated damages, to be recovered 3 in an action by the person having an estate of inheritance therein. 4
5 15 GCA § 2355. 6 The above statute seems to suggest that a separate action by Mr. Maruyama needed to 7
8 be filed in order for recovery under 15 GCA § 2355. A closer look at 15 GCA §§ 2115 and
9 2627 however, reveals that the court has jurisdiction over complaints concerning embezzlement 10 or fraudulentl y disposing of any property of the decedent. Those sections provide, 11
12 § 2115. Revocation of Personal Representative's Letters for Cause; Notice; 13 Procedure. (a) Whenever the Superior Court of Guam has reason to believe, whether from its 14 own knowledge or from credible information received, that the personal 15 representative or all co-personal representatives ... (4) have wasted, embezzled or mismanaged the property of the estate committed to their charge, or (5) are 16 about to waste or embezzle the property of the estate committed to their charge .. 17 . the Superior Court shall direct the Clerk of the Superior Court to set the time and place of a hearing thereon, which hearing shall be held not more than thirty (30) 18 days thereafter, and the Superior Court of Guam shall cite such personal 19 representative, or all such co-personal representatives, then and there to appear and show cause why their letters should not be revoked. 20
21 § 2627. Procedure Against Embezzler of Decedent's Property. 22 Upon complaint made under oath by a personal representative or other person 23 interested in the estate of a decedent, that any person is suspected of having embezzled, concealed, smuggled, or fraudulently disposed of any property of the 24 decedent, or has in his possession or has knowledge of any deed, conveyance, 25 bond, contract, or other writing, which contains evidence of or tends to disclose the right, title, interest or claim of the decedent to any real or personal property, or 26 any claim or demand, or any lost will, the Superior Court of Guam may cite the 27 suspected person to appear before the Superior Court of Guam, and may examine the suspected person on oath upon the matter of such complaint. If the suspected 28 person is found innocent, his necessary expenses must be allowed him out of the estate.
15 GCA §§ 2115, 2627. In the instant case, Mr. Maruyama and Mr. Clark made a complaint
PageS of7 alleging that Mrs. Candoleta embezzled and fraudulently disposed of estate property.4 Thus, the 2 court had jurisdiction regarding the complaint pursuant to 15 GCA §§ 2115 and 2627. 3
4 With regards to Rule 60(b)(6), the court denies Mrs. Candoleta relief because she had 5 the opportunity to present evidence. On May 11, 2009, the court ordered Mrs. Candoleta to 6 show cause why she should not be removed as Adminisratrix based on the allegations of 7
8 embezzlement and fraud. The court also ordered Mrs. Candoleta to file any opposition to Mr. 9 Mauyama's request for remedial relief and provide the court with a complete and verified 10 accounting of all estate assets. 5 A hearing on the matter was held on June 2, 2009. Mrs. 11
12 Candoleta appeared with counsel and consented to her removal. She did not present any 13 evidence in her defense and consented to an order to provide an accounting of all charges and 14 expenses regarding Unit 101. The court finds the matter has already been litigated on the issue 15 6 16 of embezzlement and the court extended the time for her to file her accounting. There is 17 substantial evidence supporting the court's order. Therefore, Mrs. Candoleta is not entitled to 18 relief of the court's August 18,2009 decision and order. 19
20 November 5, 2010 Order and February 14,2011 Abstract of Judgment 21
22 The court denies Mrs. Candoleta's remaining motions with regards to the court's
23 November 5, 2010 order assessing a penalty of $236,000.00 against Mrs. Candoleta and the 24
25 4 Tamio S. Clark is the present Administrator for the Estate. 26 5 The court also ordered Mrs. Cando leta to provide it with an accounting of all transactions she has undertaken 27
28 with respect to estate's property, all rental proceeds derived from the rental of Unit 101, and vouchers for all
payments made on account of the estate.
6 Mrs. Cando leta finally filed an accounting with the court on Sepember 10, 2009. The filing supports the claims
by the heirs of wrongful conduct by Mrs. Cando leta.
Page 60f7 abstract of judgment issued by the Clerk of Court on February 14,2011. As mentioned earlier, 2 the findings and orders are interrelated with each other. The only way the court could 3 reconsider its November 5, 2010 order or its February 14, 2011 abstract of judgment is by 4
5 granting Mrs. Candoleta relief from August 18, 2009 decision and order. Because Mrs. 6 Candoleta's request for relief regarding that decision and order has been denied, the court also 7 denies her requests for relief ofthe November 5, 2010 order and the February 14,2011 abstract 8
9 of judgment. 10 CONCLUSION 11
12 Based on the foregoing, the court hereby DENIES Mrs. Candoleta's motions for I3 reconsideration. 14
17 SO ORDERED, this.} J - - day of , It~ 2012.
23 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 24
Page 7 of7