5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6
7 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATES ) PROBATE CASE NO. PR0024-10 ) 8 ) OF ) DECISION AND ORDER 9 ) 10 ) JOSE T AITANO GUTIERREZ and ) II FLORENCE S. GUTIERREZ, ) 12 ) Deceased. ) 13
15 INTRODUCTION
16 This matter came before Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on day of August,
17 20] for hearing on Petitioner's to Reconsider, filed June 201 in which all heirs
18 Franklin 1 Gutierrez joined. Attorney Wilfred R. Mann represented Franklin 1.
9 the motion. John Terlaje represented Petitioner, Harry
20 the remaining now following and
21 Order on the matter presented. FACTUAL AND I)ROCEDURAL HISTORY
23 On ]999, Gutierrez died, survived his
24 Gutierrez. Florence Gutierrez died on February 17.2010. On Mareh 3, 201 the PelitioneL
25 Harry Dean Gutierrez filed an Parte Petition for Special Letters of Administration, labeling
26 the single case "In the Matter of the Estates of Jose Taitano Gutierrez and Florence S.
27 Gutierrez," and requesting letters of administration in two estates, one for each deceased parent,
28 despite the f'act that Jose Taitano Gutierrez had passed nearly prior, and the Decision and Order Probate Case No. PR0024-1O; In the Matter of the Estates of Jose Taitano Gutierrez and Florence S. Gutierrez
Petitioner filed only a single probate case. Thereafter, another heir, Franklin J. Gutierrez, filed 2 an opposition to the Petition for Special Letters of Administration, and on March 15, 2011, filed 3 his own request for probate of a purported holographic will of Florence S. Gutierrez, annexed to 4 a petition for letters of administration. On April 12, 201], Petitioner filed a contest to the 5 probate of the purported will and opposition to the issuance of letters of administration to 6 Franklin J. Gutierrez. On May 21,2012, the Court issued a Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 7 Law finding that the document produced by Franklin J. Gutierrez is, in fact, a holographic will, 8 which names Franklin J. Gutierrez as the executor of the estate(s) of his parent(s). 9 DISCUSSION 10 all filed a "Motion to
11 Reconsidcr" the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and issued May 21, 2012, finding that 12 Florence S. Gutierrez died testate, and appointing Franklin Gutierrez as the administrator for 13 both the estates of Florence s. Gutierrez and Jose T. Gutierrez. Harry Dean Gutierrez and the 14 other heirs claim that the Court made two "clear" errors under both Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b): 15 1) the Court failed to hold a hearing as required under 15 GCA § 1515 to allow Harry Dean
16 Gutierrez and the other heirs to contest the appointment of Franklin as executor; and
17 2) Jose did not die testate, because never signed the holographic will at issue.
18 Therefore, it was error to appoint Franklin Gutierrez as executor to the estate of Jose T.
Gutierrez, and appointment as executor should have limited to the estate of Florence
20 Gutierrez, if appointed at alL Harry Dean Gutierrez does not find error the portion of the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions and separate Judgment granting probate to the holographic will of
S. Gutierrez. Harry Dean Gutierrez finds error the portion of the Findings of Fact
Conclusions of Law's appointment of Franklin J. Gutierrez as executor to the estate of Florence
S. Gutierrez, allegedly without hearing, and with the appointment Franklin .T. Gutierrez as
26 executor to the estate of Jose T. Gutierrez. Harry Dean Gutierrez challenges the Findings of 27 Fact and Conclusions of La\v issued on May 21, 2012, and presumably also challenges
28 Judgment issued the same day, based thereon.
Page 2 of II I Decision and Order Probate Case No. PR0024-1O; In the Matter of the Estates of Jose Taitano Gutierrez and Florence S. Gutierrez
As Harry Dean Gutierrez is arguing error, Rules 59( e) and 60(b)(1) are applicable.
2 Rule 59( e) provides in relevant part, "Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. A motion to 3 alter or amend judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment." 4 Guam R. Civ. P. 59(e) (2012). Rule 59(e) grants a court the discretion to relieve a party from 5 judgment when the court is presented with new evidence, the decision is manifestly unjust or is 6 incorrect, or there is an intervening change in controlling law, provided that the party moves for 7 relief not more than ten days after a judgment was entered. Ward v. Reyes, 1998 Guam 1 ~ 2 8 (citing School DisC No. 11, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS. Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th 9 Cir.1993) cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994)). 10 Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part: II Mistakes, Inadvertence, Excusable Neglect, Newly Discovered Evidence, Fraud, 12 etc. 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 13 following reasons:(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... .The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), (3) 14 not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was taken. J5
16 Guam R. . P. 60(b)(I) (201 17 The motion is timely under both rules, and only raises "error" as the basis for relief. The
18 Supreme Court of Guam has held, "[i]t is well established that under either rule, the standard of
19 review is identical. 20 Sch. Dist. No.l.L Multanomah Cnty. v. ACandS. Inc., 5 F (9th 1993 ) (citing
21 Fullerv. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir.1991)). 22 Many jurisdictions have taken a firm stance against the utilization of Rules 59(e) and
23 60(b) to address errors fact or law made by the court, typically holding that the finality of 24 decisions or judgments must take precedence, and a party seeking to overturn a ruling on a
25 matter of law must appeal the decision. Rules and 60(b) were not intended as a substitute
26 for a direct appeal from an erroneous decision. ~~~-,--,-~~=::j;2'~~~~~~~~=' 27 575 F.3d 542, 546-48 (5 th Cir. 2009). The fact that an attorney believes that a decision is
28 erroneous does not constitute a ground for relief under the rules. Silk v. Sandoval, F.2d
3 of II Decision and Order Probate Case No. PR0024-i 0; In the Matter of the Estates of Jose Taitano Gutierrez and Florence S. Gutierrez
1266,1267-68 (lst Cir.1971); accord Matter ofTa Chi Navigation (Panama) Corp. S.A., 728 2 F.2d 699,703 (5 th Cif. 1984); Tribble v. Bruin, 279 F.2d 424, 427 (4th Cir.1960); Swam v. 3 United States, 327 F.2d 431,433 (7th Cir.1964) cert. denied, 379 U.S. 852 (l964); and Hartman
4 v. Lauchli, 304 F.2d 431, 432 (8th Cir. 1962). 5 Even in jurisdictions allowing relief for judicial "errors," the conclusions or 6 interpretations of the court after considering applicable law and arguments do not constitute 7 "mistake" or "error" justifying relief \vithin the purview of Rule 60(b). See, e.g" ~==-:"'-== 8 v. 31.63 Acres of Land, 840 F.2d 760, 761-62 & nA (lOth Cir. 1988)(argument that ruling was 9 based on a misapplication of the law does not provide a basis for relief under Rule 60(b)); and 10 1 F.2d 908, 913 Cif. 1982)(argument that district court
II misinterpreted the law does not come within the ambit of Rule 60(b )). Thus, where a court has 12 carefully considered all arguments and applicable authority, and merely reaches an alleged 13 "flawed" conclusion, relief may not be granted on the basis of judicial mistake or error under
14 Rule 60(b). 15 Instead, relief under Rule 60(b)( 1) in these jurisdictions is limited to situations in which
16 the error alleged 1S simple mistake or inadvertence. rule has "generally been construed to
17 govern errors of law properly characterized as judicial 'oversight' such as 'overlooking 18 controlling statutes or case law. Matter of Ta Chi Navigation (Panama) Corp. S.A., 728 19 699, 703 (5th Cif. 1984). These courts have found that the purpose of Rule 60(b)(1) 20 permit the trial court to reconsider and correct 'obvious errors of law' 21 parties to engage in the machinery of appeal. 22 922, 925 (5th CiI. 1983) (quoting ~==~-'--=:~, 564 F.2d 734, 736 (5th Cir. 1977»). 23 obvious errors of law include instances where a court's determination is clearly at odds with the 24 plain wording of a statute, such as the failure to apply a limiting provision, or an award 25 excess of the statutory maximum. See MeadO\vs v. Cohen, 409 F.2d 750, 753 (5th Cir. 1 26 Caraway v. Sain, 23 F.R.D. 657,659-660 (N.D.Fla. 1959). 27 1) Allegation that the Court Erred Because it Did Not Hold The Hearing Required Under 28
Page 4 of II "Decision and Order Probate Case No. PR0024-1 0; In the Matter of the Estates of Jose Taitano Gutierrez and Florence S. Gutierrez
In its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court specifically found that "proper 2 notice and hearing have been hcld pursuant to 15 GCA §§ 3401, 1515, and 1607." In the Matter 3 of the Estates of Jose Taitano Gutierrez and Florence S. Gutierrez, Probate Case No. PR0024- 4 10, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, p. 9, lines 3-5 (May 21,2012). In fact, the Court 5 held several hearings to allow the parties to contest each other's petitions for letters of 6 administration, including a hearing on the merits of Franklin Gutierrez's petition on April 23, 7 2010, a hearing on the merits of Harry Gutierrez's petition on March 30, 2011, and a full 8 evidentiary hearing on the merits of the issuance of letters of administration on June 10,2011. 9 There were also complementary proceedings in Probate Case No. PR0028-10, entitled, "In the 10 Matter of the Estate of Florence S. Gutierrez, wherein Franklin filed a petition for letters of 11 administration and the proper notices therefore on March 10,2010, and March 18,2010. Harry 12 Dean Gutierrez filed an objection to the issuance of letters in PR0028-1O on April 2, 2010. The
13 hearing was scheduled for April 2010, in full compliance with 15 GCA § 1515, but I-larry 14 Dean Gutierrez's attorney did not appear because he was off-island, and Franklin J Gutierrez's 15 attorney agreed to a continuance as a "professional courtesy." The Court then ordered that no
16 further notices needed to sent by Franklin J. Gutierrez, as the motion had been properly 17 noticed under the statute, but re-scheduled as a favor to Harry Dean Gutierrez's attorney. 18 PR0028-10 was subsequently dismissed pursuant to a request to consolidate the case with the
19 originally filed PR0024-1 and agreement to all probate matters regarding the
20 estate of Florence handled to\:J(Ct'her in PR0024-10. However, the re-scheduled
21 hearing from that case was then heard as part of PR0024-1 0, as agreed by the parties. 22 full evidentiary was then scheduled in the matter for June 10, 2011, in order to 23 allow Harry and the heirs to contest both the validity of the will and the possible grant of 24 letters of administration to Franklin. This hearing was held, however, at this hearing, both
25 counsels appeared and elected agreement to submit their respective arguments concerning 26 the issues in VvTiting through supplemental briefing. Harry Dean Gutierrez was the first to 27 submit this briefing, and entitled his briet~ "Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support 28 of Contest of Will and Petition /i)r Letters of Administration." Probate Case No. PR0024-10,
Page 5 of 11 Decision and Order Probate Case No. PR0024-10; In the Matter of the Estates of Jose Taitano Gutierrez and Florence S. Gutierrez
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Contest of Will and Petition for Letters of 2 Administration (tiled June 28, 2011) (emphasis added). In this brief, it is admitted by Harry 3 Dean Gutierrez that under 15 GCA § 1603, the Court "must now determine the issues and try 4 any issue of facts involving ... any other issue substantially affecting the validity of the will."
5 Id., at p. 1, lines 24-25; and p. 2, lines 1-3. 6 The COUli specifically found that under Guam law, it was required to determine 7 testamentary intent in determining the validity of the "viII. Probate Case No. PR0024-10, 8 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, p. 6, lines 3-12 (May 21, 2012). The Court further 9 explicitly found that the appointment of an administrator/executor of an "estate" was a factor
10 which a necessary testamentary intent, affecting the validity the wilL Id., at )1 9. Accordingly, it was apparent that the determination of an administrator/executor was a 12 necessary analysis in the determination of the issues before the Court In fact, this argument
13 was made by Franklin J. Gutierrez in his "Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition 14 to Harry Dean Gutierrez's Contest of Will and Petition for Letters of Administration. Id., 15 Mem. of P. & A. in Opp. to Harry Dean Gutierrez's Contest of Will and Pet. for Letters of
16 Administration, 4, lines 1 and p. lines 1 (filed July 1]).
It is clear from the petitions, notices, and briefs filed that the issue the appointment of 18 an administrator/executor of the estate was at issue, was material to the determination the 19 validity of the will, and was actually contested by these parties. Harry Dean Gutierrez was 20 afforded proper notice and several hearings at which he contested the admission the 21 holographic will and the appointment of Franklin J. Gutierrez as the executor of the estate. All of the substantive requirements of 15 GC A § 1515 were met, at hearings, and was
23 no error under Rules 59(e) and 60(b). 24 2)
25 Estate 26 Jose 1'. Gutierrez has no separate estate. Although the caption of PR0024-1 0 is labeled 27 "In the Matter of the Estates of Jose Taitano Gutierrez and Florence S. Gutierrez," there has 28 never been any separate estate of Jose Gutierrez to administer, by law. Accordingly, the Court
Page 6 of II I Decisio" and O,de<· Probate Case No. PR0024-10; In the Matter of the Estates of Jose Taitano Gutierrez and Florence S. Gutierrez
finds that it did err in making the broad finding that both Jose T. GutielTez and Florence S.
2 GutielTez died testate. In fact, HalTY Dean GutielTez is correct in pointing out that Jose T.
3 Gutierrez died in 1999, and that Jose T. GutielTez never signed the holographic will at issue.
4 Thus, the record supports no factual conclusion other than that Jose T. Gutierrez died intestate.
5 The Court amends its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of May 21, 2012, in accordance
6 with this finding. 7 Ho\vever, pursuant to 15 GCA § 1005(a), "when a malTied person dies intestate, ... such
8 interest passes to the surviving spouse subject to the provisions of Sections 1007 and 1009 of
9 this Title, and no administration thereon shall be necessary." 15 GCA § 1005(a) (2012). Under
10 subsection (b) of the same statute, no estate is established for the pre-deceased
II intestate, unless the surviving spouse elects to do so by filing a probate case requesting
12 administration within four months of the date of the pre-deceased spouse's death, or another
13 heir tiles a probate within the same time frame contesting the surviving spouse's inheritance and
14 the passage of the property without administration. ]5 GCA § 1005(b) (2012). Under 15 GCA §
15 1007. ninety (90) calendar days from death of a malTied person, the surviving spouse of
16 or personal representative guardian of the estate of such spouse
17 shall have full power to sell, lease, mortgage or otherwise deal with and dispose of the
18 community real property, The right, title and interest of any grantee, purchaser.
19 or of devisees or creditors of the deceased spouse
20 as separate properly 21 15 GCA § 1007 12)(emphases added).
after Gutierrez' death in 1999, no one elected to start a
23 separate estate for alleged separate property of T. GutielTez. Accordingly, as there was
24 no will of T. Gutierrez leaving any separate property to any other heir (Harry Dean
25 Gutierrcz emphatically asserts that Jose T. Gutierrez died intestate), all of his property passcd to
26 Florence S. Gutierrez, as his surviving spouse. Because Jose T. Gutierrez died intestate, and no
27 probate case was opened, all of the property, including anything that could have been alleged to
28 have been his separate property, passed to Florence through operation of 15 GCA § 1005 and
Page 7 of t t Decision and Order Probate Case No. PR0024-1 0; In the Matter of the Estates of Jose Taitano Gutierrez and Florence S. Gutierrez
the laws of intestacy without contest and without administration. No administration of any 2 alleged estate of Jose T. Gutierrez was necessary through operation of this law, and further, all
3 of the property which passed to Florence S. Gutierrez became her o\vn separate property, as the
4 community was dissolved by the death of Jose T. Gutierrez. See 15 GCA § 1007. Accordingly, 5 PR0024-10 is the probate case of the Estate of Florence S. Gutierrez, and is not the estate of her
6 pre-deceased spouse, regardless of how the parties decided to caption the proceedings. It does 7 not matter that Jose T. Gutierrez never signed the holographic will at issue, for the purposes of 8 administration of any possible separate property. It does matter that Jose T. Gutierrez died 9 intestate prior to the death of his spouse, because by the laws of succession, all of his property
10 then passed to at the death, administration, because no
I! probate case was timely opened for his estate to contest the passage of his property. If any of the heirs of Jose T. Gutierrez believed that there was separate property of Jose T. Gutierrez which 13 should have become part of a separate estate, or passed to them upon his death, those heirs had
14 ninety days to begin probate proceedings. 15 GCA § 1005 No one did so, and thus, all of his 15 property passed to Florence S. Gutierrez by operation oflaw, without administration. (, Rule 61 the Guam Rules error" provides in
17 relevant part: 18 no error or defect in ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the 19 court . . . is ground ., . vacating, modifying, or disturbing a judgment or order, refusal to take appears to the court 20 inconsistent with substantial courl at erery the proceeding must disTegard any error or delect which not afTect the 21 suhstantial
Guam R. P. 61 (201 (emphasis added).
24 This rule specifically applies to both findings fact and rulings la\v made by a trial
F.2d 816, 821 (9th
26 1961 )(Failure of the trial court to make certain factual findings was harmless, and would have 27 constituted mere surplusage, when the court's correct conclusion on the issue presented
28 precluded any recovery by plaintiff); see also Llovds of London v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Page 8 of 11 Decision and Order Probate Case No. PR0024-1O; In the Matter of the Estates of Jose Taitano Gutierrez and Florence S. Gutierrez
Line Corp., 101 F.3d 425,428 (5 th Cir. 1996) (quoting Barber v. Ruth, 7 F.3d 636, 641 (7th
2 Cir.1993) (" ... a trial court's erroneous rulings may be deemed harmless if the record indicates 3 that the trial court would have rendered the same judgment regardless of the error. ")). Under
4 this rule, "[h]e who seeks to have a judgment set aside because of an erroneous ruling carries 5 the burden of showing that prejudice resulted." Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 116 (1943).
6 Petitioner Harry Dean Gutierrez has failed to show hmv he is prejudiced by the Court's error in 7 appointing Franklin J. Gutierrez as the executor of the "estate" of Jose T. Gutierrez, when the 8 existence of such an estate is fiction, being without any demonstrated or proven assets requiring 9 administration. All of the assets to which the heirs will lay claim are contained in the estate of
10 Florence S. Gutierrez. Thus, even though there was an error findings of the Court, this
II error is irrelevant as to the ultimate result, and thus, harmless under Rule 61. 12 Accordingly, although the Court stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
13 that both Florence S. Gutierrez and Jose T Gutierrez died testate, and that Franklin J. Gutierrez 14 was appointed as the executor of both estates, the Court amends this finding, to ref1ect that Jose 15 T. Gutierrez died intestate in 1999, and therefore, through operation of intestate succession to
16 his spouse, does not, in and have separate estate to administer.
17 However, this error was harmless and not prejudicial to the substantive rights of the parties, as th 18 contemplated under Rule 61. ~~~'-'--"~~~~=~~~~~, F.2d 511,513-14 (9
19 Cir. 1978) though was error the Court, the error was mere surplus which did
20 not the substantial rights of the parties, or the outcome the case, and was therefore
21 harmless under Rule 61.) 22 The Court is not required to waste both appointing an executor Florence S.
23 Gutierrez because she died testate, and a separate administrator for Jose T Gutierrez because he 24 died intestate, as indicated by the Petitioner, Harry Dean Gutierrez, because Jose T Gutierrez
25 no longer has a separate estate. There is no of any assets owned outside the marriage
26 of Jose Gutierrez and Florence S. Gutierrez, nor was there ever any separate, timely probate 27 ease opened for Jose T. Gutierrez. Harry Dean Gutierrez has further failed to provide the Court
28 with any evidence, argument, or citation to law supporting the idea that Jose T. Gutierrez has
Page 9 of II Decision and Order Probate Case No. PR0024-1 0; In the Matter of the Estates of Jose Taitano Gutierrez and Florence S. Gutierrez
any estate requiring administration. Consequently, there is no valid reason to appoint both an
2 administrator for Jose T. Gutierrez and an executor for Florence S. Gutierrez in this case, which
3 is, by operation of law, the probate matter for the estate of Florence S. Gutierrez, no matter how
4 it has been captioned by the attorneys. 5 Accordingly, there is no error, as contemplated under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)(1). There is
6 merely the Court's error in copying the caption utilized by the Petitioner's attorney in issuing its 7 findings and judgment appointing Franklin J. Gutierrez as the executor for both the estate of 8 Jose T. Gutierrez and the estate of Florence S. Gutierrez, when, by law, there is no estate for
9 Jose T. Gutierrez for which there can be an executor. This is harmless error, as contemplated
10 under GRCP Rule 61, not affect rights the parties. The
II erroneous use of language indicating the extraneous appointment of Franklin J. Gutierrez as the 12 executor/administrator of the legally and factually fictitious estate of Jose T. Gutierrez does not
13 affect the fact that Jose T Gutierrez does not have a separate estate to administer, and does not
14 affect the Court's appointment of Franklin J. Gutierrez as the executor to the only existing
15 estate-that of Florence S. Gutierrez. 16 a matter record, there is no separate estate
17 Jose T. Gutierrez 10 administer. although Court erred relying upon the
18 caption utilized by Petitioner's attorney, and thereupon utilizing language purporting to appoint
19 Franklin J. Gutierrez as the executor a non-existent estate, this error was harmless
20 error under Rule 61. Petitioner. I-larry Dean Gutierrez has failed to show that there are
21 assets outside of the estate of Florence Gutierrez, or that or any of the other heirs who
22 have jomed in the of this were prejudiced by the appointment of Franklin
23 Gutierrez as executor to a estate with no assets for administration. There is no
24 substantive error under Rules 59( e) and 60(b) in appointing Franklin J. Gutierrez as the executor
25 to "both" estates, as the only existing estate is that of Florence S. Gutierrez. and Franklin .1. 26 Gutierrez has been appointed as the executor to that estate. Harry Dean Gutierrez does not
27 contend that there are any separate assets for administration, and does not dispute the
28 appointment of Franklin J. Gutierrez as executor to the estate of Florence S. Gutierrez. as
Page IOofll ~Decision and Order Probate Case No. PR0024-1 0; In the Matter of the Estates of Jose Taitano Gutierrez and Florence S. Gutierrez
directed in her holographic wilL Thus, the Court's appointment of Franklin J. Gutierrez as 2 executor to the fictitious estate of Jose T. Gutierrez was merely extraneous, and did not affect
3 the substance of the matters at issue in this case. 4 CONCLUSION 5 Pursuant to Guam law, there is no separate estate of Jose T. Gutierrez to administer. 15 6 GCA §§ 1005 and 1007. The Court used language appointing Franklin J. Gutierrez as executor 7 to "both" the estates of Jose T. Gutierrez and Florence S. Gutierrez because the case caption 8 labeled the case as a dual estate, and the Court merely utilized the case caption in issuing its 9 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law without conducting a full inquiry into whether this
10 case caption was properly the Petitioner's attorney, and whether there was actually an II estate left by Jose T. Gutierrez which was in need of administration. By the laws of intestate 12 succession, PR0024-1 0 consists of the probate of only one estate, that of Florence S. Gutierrez, 13 because no separate probate case was ever opened or administered for the estate of Jose T. 14 Gutierrez within 90 days of his death. There is no estate of Jose T. Gutierrez, and thus, the 15 appointment of Franklin J. Gutierrez as executor to the non-existent estate with no assets 10 16 administer was a legal fiction, and constituted harmless error under Rule 61. Finally, the 17 Petitioner was provided proper notice and hearing was held pursuant to 15 GCA §§ 3401, 1515, 18 and 1607. Accordingly, although the Court amends its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
19 in accordance with the in this decision, the Court did not commit an error which
20 materially affected the of the parties as contemplated under GRCP Rules
21 59(e) or 60(b)(l), and the Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. 22
24 IT IS SO ORDERED this ~~~~~~~~~ 25
26 • 27 HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS 28 Judge, Superior Court of Guam
Page 11 () f II