Manley v. Manley

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: October 2, 2013
• Docket: CV1394-11
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

.I

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

5 DOROTHY A. MANLEY, CIVIL CASE NO. CVI394-11 6

7 Plaintiff, FINDINGS OF FACT & 8 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 9 ALBERT A. MANLEY, 10 Defendant. II

13 INTRODUCTION 14 This matter came on for a Bench Trial before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on 15

16 March 13, 2013. Plaintiff's complaint is seeking rescission of a deed and restoration of her

17 right and title to the premises. The Court having heard the testimony of the parties and 18 consideration of the evidence produced at trial, now issues the following Findings of Fact and 19 Conclusions of Law on the matter presented. 20 In a bench trial, the Court is the trier of fact and is the sole judge of the credibility of the 21

22 witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. United States v. Bale, 813 F .2d 1289,

23 1293 (4th Cir. 1987). The Court has both the right and duty to weigh the evidence and to draw 24 reasonable and rational inferences from the facts in evidence, including circumstantial evidence. 25 State v. Halmos, 755 P.2d 1226, 1227 (Haw. 1988). The trial court is afforded deference and 26

27 due regard in detem1ining the credibility of witnesses. Jenkins v. Montallana, 2007 Guam 12,

28 ~9; Town House Dep't Stores. Inc. v. Hi Sup Ahn, et al, 2000 Guam 32, ~13. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Dorothy A. Manley vs. A /bert A. Manley; Civil Case No. CV 1394-11

FINDINGS OF FACT

2 By preponderance ofthe evidence the Court makes the following findings of fact:

3 1. That the plaintiff is the natural mother of the defendant. 4 2. That on or about November 20, 2009, Plaintiff executed a Deed of Gift in favor 5 of defendant to her property described as Lot No. 137. 6 ,.., .). That the Defendant recorded the Deed of Gift m the Department of Land 7

8 Management on November 24, 2009.

9 4. That the Deed contained no restrictions or conditions. 10 5. That Plaintiff continued to reside in the family home located on Lot No. 137 II along with defendant and his family. 12

6. That in 2011, Plaintiff voluntarily left the family residence because of disputes l3

14 with defendant and members of Defendant's family

15 7. That the Defendant has been making all mortgage payments in the amount of 16 approximately Six Hundred Dollars ($600.00) per month since June 2010. 17 8. That prior to the conveyance the Defendant had received notices of foreclosure 18

19 from the Bank.

20 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 21 This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Title 7 Guam Code Annotated, Section 31 05. 22 The Plaintiff asks this Court to order a rescission of the deed based upon defendant's 23 failure to provide and care for her. Plaintiff asserts that defendant has committed fraud in the 24

25 inducement by promising to provide plaintiff with full support of living space in the home and

26 by failing or refusing to do as he promised after the plaintiff signed over the property. A Deed is 27 a contract. See generally, 18 GCA § 86106 (5) "A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a 28

Page 2 of4 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Dorothy A. Manley vs. Albert A. Manley; Civil Case No. CV I 394-11

certain thing." 18 GCA § 85101 (20 12). The elements of a contract on Guam are: 1) parties

2 capable of contracting; 2) consent of the parties; 3) a lawful object; and 4) sufficient

3 consideration. As such the Court must look to the provisions of the Guam Code regarding 4 contracts and the applicable contract remedies. 5 Plaintiff's main argument is that the deed was procured by fraud in the inducement. Our 6 Supreme Court has determined: The elements of fraud are: "(1) a misrepresentation; (2) 7

8 knowledge of falsity (or scienter); (3) intent to defraud to induce reliance; (4) justifiable

9 reliance; and (5) resulting damages." Transpacific Export Co. v. Oka Towers Corp., 2000 10 Guam 3 'lf23. The tort of intentional misrepresentation has the same elements as fraud. See Lim II v. The.TV Corp. Int'l, 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 333, 339 (Ct. App. 2002). Hemlani v. Flaherty, 2003 12

13 Guam 17.

14 Plaintiff has simply failed to meet its burden or to produce any evidence of the asserted

15 consideration either in writing or by convincing testimony that Defendant agreed as a condition 16 of the transfer to be obligated to provide her shelter or care. Even had this been the case the 17 evidence before the Court is that the Plaintiff simply moved out after an argument with 18

19 defendant's family and has since refused to return to the home despite defendants continued

20 assurance that she may return at any time. Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of any of 21 the elements to support the claim of fraud. 22

23 Ill 24

25 Ill

26 Ill 27

Page 3 of 4 Findings ofFact & Conclusions of Law Dorothy A. Manley vs. Albert A. Manley; Civil Case No. CV 1394-1 I

2 CONCLUSION

3 The Court finds under the evidence presented and the law applicable to this case that 4 Judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant, and that all parties shall bear their own cost 5 and attorney's fees. 6

7 OCT 2 ?Q1~ SO ORDERED th1s __~day M'October, 2013. 8

11 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 12

Page 4 of 4