Fl SLED $7 ,,
-e LED
SLiPERiOR courT SUPERiOR COURT
GF OF GUAM
znzssme 2025 SEP 29BHll.M@a2h3
(nr~3
CLERKGF cLERk OF QUURT
COURT
IN THESUPERIOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
COURT OF
OF GUAM
GUAM ---"4\:~----
:BY;,,.: :Sys
. MOYLAN, AS JEFFREYS. CIVIL CASE CASE NO.
no. CV0760-16
ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATOR OF OF THE
THE ESTATE
ESTATE OF
RICHARD RlCHARD E. MOYLAN, DECISION DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION MOTION
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, FOR FOR RECONSIDERATION
RECONSIDERATION OR
ORIN
IN THE
THE
ALTERNATIVE CLARIFICATION;
vs. vs. MOTION FOR FOR SUMMARY
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; AND MOTION
MOTION TO
AXE MURDERER TOURS TOURS GUAM, ET RECONSIDER AL.,
Defendant/Counterclaimants.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS.
CLAIMS.
Jeffrey S. Moylan, as Administrator of of the Estate of
of Richard E. Moylan, asks the Court to
reconsider two earlier rulings and and to
to render summary judgment judgment on
on the issue of Richard's rights to
Lot Lot No.
No. 1051, I 051, Hagatna, Hagatna, Guam.
Guam. The
TheCourt
Courtfinds
findsthat
thatreconsideration
reconsideration isis warranted only relative to
this Court's Court's earlier earlier determination
determination that
that undisputed
undisputed facts
facts showed that he was not a third-party third-party
beneficiary of a Lease Agreement Agreement between
between his family members and and third
third parties.
I. 1. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May May 6,
6, 2022, the Court denied denied Richard's
Richard's Motion
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
asserting that he had exclusive possessory possessory rights to Lot No. 1051, Hagatna, which 1051, Hagatna, which Richard's
family leased leased to to third parties.
parties. The
The Court
Court ruled, "While
"While section
section 22 [of
[ofthe
the Lease] does
does require that
the Lessees acquire Richard's consent consent before
before using
usingthe
the property,
property, itit does
does not
not state
state that
that the Lessons
Lessors
forfeit their their rights rights of
ofpossession
possession to Richard
Richard absent
absent this
this consent. Instead,
Instead, the
the section
section articulates
articulates a
Ia .. H N . ,'l\llL'1uEW"u
CV0760-16 DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION MOTION FOR
FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN Page2 Page
THE THE ALTERNATIVE CLARIFICATION; MOTION MOTION FOR
FOR SUMMARY
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; AND MOTION
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
reservation of rights ....
...." "Dec.
Dec.& &
Order
OrderDenying
DenyingPls.'
Pis.'Mot.
Mot.Partial
PartialSumm.
Summ. J.
J. at
at 4 (May 6,
2022). 2022).
On May 13, 13, 2022, the Court granted a summary summaryjudgment
judgment motion
motion filed
filed by Defendants
E.C. Development ("ECD")
("ECD") and
and Paseo
Paseo View
View Properties ("PVP"), Inc.
Properties ("PVP"), Inc.on onthe
the issue
issue of
of Richard's
Richard's
status as as aathird-party third-partybeneficiary.
beneficiary. Utilizing the California Utilizing the California Supreme Supreme Court's
Court's recent
recent test
test in
Goonewardene Goonewardene v_ ADRLLC., v. ADP, LLC., 434 P.3d 124, 130 P.3d 124, 130 (Cal.
(Cal. 2019),
2019),the
the Court held
held that Richard
Richard could
9
not claim not claim to be a third-party third-party beneficiary
beneficiary entitled
entitledto
toenforce
enforcethe
theLease.
Lease.Dec.
Dec.&& Order Re Defs.'
Defy.
Mot. Sums.
Summ.J.
J. (Filed
(Filed1/21/22) (May 13, 2022).
1/21/22) (May 2022).
Since the Lease was not made expressly expressly for Richard's
Richard's benefit,
benefit, nor were the
contracting parties motivated to benefit Richard, Richard does not have the right to enforce the Lease as a third-party beneficiary. Absent such beneficiary. Absent such rights to enforce the Lease, Richard cannot pursue the contract claims of of Accounting, Breach ofof Contract, or Breach of the the Implied
Implied Covenant
Covenant ofof Good
Good Faith
Faith and Fair
Dealing.
Id aatt 4-5. Id
Richard Richard moves moves to
to reconsider
reconsider both
both decisions,
decisions, and
and to certify
certify the matter for
the matter for appeal
appeal if
if
reconsideration is is not
not granted.
granted. Mot.
Mot. Recons.
Recons. or in the
theAlternative
Alternative Clarification Clarification of
of May
May 6,
6, 2022
2022
Dec. Dec. (May (May 11, 11, 2022),
2022); Mem. Supporting
Supporting Ex Parte
Parle Mot. to Shorten Time Time for
for Mot. Recons., or in
Recons., or
the Alternative Alterative totoSet SetAside
AsideDees.,
Dees.,Otherwise
Otherwise to
to Certify
Certify J.
J. (May
(May 16,
16, 2022).
2022). He
Healso
also seeks
seeks aa
summary judgmentruling summary judgment rulingthat thatRichard's
Richard's"'permission'
"'permission'isisrequired requiredby
by[PVP]
[PVP] and
and[ECD],
[ECD], who are
are
the lessees lesseesby byassignment
assignmentunder
under the
the Lease,ininorder ......Lease, ordertoto'use'
'use'oror'occupy'
'occupy'Lot
Lot1051
1051...
... in
accordance with 12 accordance with 112of ofsaid
said1989
1989Lease."
Lease." Mot.
Mot. Summ.
Sums. J.
J. at 1-2 (May
(May 11,
II, 2022).
As As aa last last procedural
procedural point,
point, the
the Court
Court explains
explainswhy
whyitittook
tookthree
threeyears
years to
to address
address these
these
motions. Within Withinthese these motions,
motions, Richard also moves to disqualify disqualifythis
this Judge,
Judge; that particular
particular issue
issue
litigated first and resolved by was litigated by the the Guam
GuamSupreme
SupremeCourt.
Court. Order
OrderDenying
DenyingWrit
Writof
of Prohibition
Prohibition
il.l.HtiI' *J@\hunH'Jhi,
CV0760-16 DECISION DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN Page 3 Page
THE ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE CLARIFICATION; MOTION MOTION FOR
FOR SUMMARY
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; AND MOTION TO WDGMENT; AND TO RECONSIDER
(June 12, 2023). Following the 2023). Following the Guam Guam Supreme
Supreme Court's
Court's ruling,
ruling, Third Party Defendant Douglas
Moylan related to the third degree to this Judge, resulting in her disqualification. Moylan hired counsel related
Form One - Disqualification Form Disqualification(Dec.
(Dec.21,
21,2023).
2023). The
Thematter
matterwas
was reassigned
reassigned to the Honorable
Arthur Arthur R.
R. Barcinas, Barcinas, who ruled that Douglas' new counsel was disqualified counsel was disqualified from representing
him. Dec.
Dec. & Order (Oct.
& Order (Oct. 16,
16, 2024). The matter was reassigned 2024). The reassigned back back to this Judge, who,
following following the the substitution
substitution of
ofJeffrey
Jeffrey S. Moylan as
S. Moylan as Administrator of of the Estate
Estate of
of Richard
Richard Moylan
Moylan
as Plaintiff, Plaintiff heard heardRichard's
Richard'sthree
threepending
pending motions
motions on
onJuly
July29,
29, 2025,
2025, and
and took
took them
them under
advisement.
II. UNDISPUTED FACTS
The Court incorporates incorporates the
the Undisputed
Undisputed Facts
Facts stated in its December 13, 13, 2018
2018 Decision
Decision
and Order re Motion Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss Counterclaims
Counterclaims and Third Party Claims, May 6, 2022 Decision
and Order Denying Plaintiffs'
Plaintiffs' Motion
Motion for
for Partial Summary
Summary Judgment,
Judgment, and
and May
May 13,
13, 2022
Decision Decision and and Order re Defendants' Motion Motion for
forSummary
SummaryJudgment.
Judgment.
111. III. MAY 11, 11, 2022 2022 MOTION
MOTION FOR
FOR SUMMARY
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT & MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION
Richard's May May 11,
11, 2022 Motion for Summary Summary Judgment
Judgment and
and May
May 11,
11, 2022 Motion for
Reconsideration both ask the Court to clarify whether the Lease Agreement requires ECD/PVP to
obtain Richard's permission permission before
before using or occupying Lot Lot No. 1051. The
The plain
plain language
language of
of the
itself answers this question: "the Lease itself "the permission of of Richard E. Moylan is necessary before the
said lot lot can usedby can be used by Lessees."
Lessees." Deel.
Deal. Counsel, Ex. A (Aug. 2, 2017) ,r (hereinafter "Lease 2017)112
Agreement"). The The Court's
Court's May
May6,6, 2022
2022 Decision
Decision and
and Order also made this
this clear:
clear: "Section
"Section 2
limited the Lessee's Lessee's exercise
exercise of
of these
these rights
rights in
in that
that they had to obtain Richard's consent consent before
* I
Lr ram
I
.l\hL»nn\ii" as
1
b
CV0760-16 DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN DECISION Page4 Page
THE ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE CLARIFICATION; MOTION MOTION FOR
FOR SUMMARY
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER
making use use of of Lot
Lot No. 1051." Dec.
Dec. &
& Order
Order Denying
Denying Plfs.'
Plfs.' Mot.
Mot. Part.
Part. Sums.
Summ. J.
J. at 2.
2. As
As this
issue has been been squarely
squarely addressed, the two addressed, the two motions motions were
were unnecessary.
unnecessary.
IV. IV- MAY 16, 16. 2022
2022 MOTION
MOTION FOR
FOR RECONSIDERATION
RECONSIDERATION
A. The Proper Standard for Reconsideration Reconsideration
Richard Richard asks asks this Court
Court to reconsider its
its May
May 13
13 Decision
Decisionand
and Order
Orderunder
underthe
the standards
standards
of of Guam Guam Rule of Civil Civil Procedure
Procedure 60(b). His
His citation
citationisis problematic
problematic for
for two
two reasons.
reasons.
First, First,Richard fails fails to specify what provision provision of
ofwhat
what Rule
Rule 60(b)
60(b) warrants
warrants reconsideration
here. Rule Rule 60(b)
60(b) details
details six
six separate basesfor
separate bases for relief:
relief: (1)
( 1)mistake,
mistake, inadvertence,
inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect;
neglect, (2)
(2) newly
newly discovered evidence;
evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a voidjudgment, judgment; (5) the
judgment has been beensatisfied;
satisfied, and
and(6)
(6)any
anyother
otherreason.
reason. ItIt isis not
not the
theCourt's
Court'sjob
job to
to figure
figure out
which basis Richard Richard asks
asks the
the Court
Court to apply.
Second, Rule60 Second, Rule 60applies appliestotopost-judgment
post-judgmentrelief.
relief GRCP
GRCP 60(b)
60(b)(relief
(relief from
from final
final
judgments or orders); Phillipe Phillips v.u Sheriff
Sherw0f ofCook
Cook Cry,
Cty., 828 541, 559(70*th Cir. 2016) (Rule 828 F.3d 541,559
60(b) does does not not apply
apply to
to interlocutory
interlocutory orders).
orders). Richard
Richardcites
cites aa Montana
Montana case, Kochv.v Billings case, Koch Billings
School Dist.
Dist. No.
No. 2,833
833 P.2d
P.2d 181
181 (Mont.
(Mont. 1992),
1992),in support of his
his argument that Rule 60(b)
applies to the reconsideration reconsideration of summary judgment decisions.
summary judgment decisions. In Koch, Koch, the lower court granted
summary judgment judgment to a school school district and school board for for negligence
negligence claims
claims asserted
asserted by a
student injured injured in in a physical education class.
class. 833
833 P,2d at 18
P.2d at 181.
I. The court based its decision on
existing Montana laws governing immunity. Id Thestudent Id. The studentdid
didnot
notappeal
appeal those
those decisions,
decisions, and
they were
therefore they were rendered renderedtotobe
befinal.
final. Id. at
at 184.
184. The
Thelaws
laws on
on immunity,
immunity, however,
however, were
amended later, leading amended later, leading the the student
student to
to seek
seekreconsideration
reconsideration since
sinceimmunity
immunity no
no longer protected
school district the school district and and board.
board. Id. The
TheMontana
MontanaSupreme
Supreme Court
Courtfound
found that
that this
this change
change in law
presented "extraordinary "extraordinary circumstances"
circumstances" warranting reconsideration of of the
the grant of
ofsummary
summary
I
l~.~.IFF1§l\`, 1
1
*'\uum§H; gt .
CV0760-!6 CV0760-16 DECISION DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN Page 5 Page
THE ALTERNATIVE CLARIFICATION; MOTION MOTION FOR
FOR SUMMARY
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; JUDGMENT; AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER
that this
judgment, but noted that this "does "does not
not establish
establish aageneral
generalrule
rulefor
for reopening
reopening aa final
final judgment
merely because merely because there has been a subsequent change in the law upon which that judgment judgment was
based." Id. at based." at 186.
186.
similarity between
The only similarity between Koch and Guam Koch and Guam law
law isis the
the ruling
ruling that
that the
the use
use of
of Rule 60(b)
is is limited limited to extraordinary situations.
situations. DFS
DFS Guam L.P. 14
Guam L.R AB. Won
v. A.B. WonPal
PalInt'!
Inf 'IAirpor/
Airport Auth.,
AuIh., 2014
Guam 12 ,r1121, seealso 21; see alsoMoolenaar
Moolenaar v_ Gov?of
v. Gov't of VI, rd Cir.
VL, 822 F.2d 1342, 1346 (3rd Cir. 1987)
1987)("[t]he
("[t]he
remedy provided by Rule Rule 60(b)
60(b) is
is 'extraordinary,
'extraordinary,and
andspecial
special circumstances mustjustify circumstances must justify granting
relief reliefunder under it.").
it."). Otherwise,
Otherwise,Koch
Kochhas
has no
no parallel
parallel here.
here. Koch
Koch involved
involvedaasummary
summary judgment
ruling ruling reduced reduced to to aa final
finaljudgment,
judgment;that
thathas
has not
nothappened
happened in
in this
this case.
case. Koch involved
involved an
an injured
student who was shut out of a remedy remedy due to
to immunity
immunity laws, which were then repealed, repealed; in
contrast, Richard's Richard's request for contract contract remedies
remedies lacks that same feeling of iniquity. Rather, he iniquity. Rather,
just asks the Court Court to consider his
his arguments
argumentsfor
for the
the second
secondtime.
time. That
That is
is not
not an
an extraordinary
extraordinary
situation.
Though not cited by Richard, Richard, CVR
CVR 7.
7.1(i)
I (i) is utilized for
for pre-judgment
pre-judgment reconsideration
motions. CVR CVR7.1 7. I states
states that
that reconsideration
reconsideration may
may be
be granted
granted if,
if, among
among other
other reasons,
reasons, there is a
change in in law occurring after the decision. As As discussed
discussed in
in the
the next sections, the Court Court finds
here that there there has
has been
been aa change
change in
in the
the law
law which
which amends
amends the
the Court's
Court's prior
prior analysis.
analysis. Because
.1 (i) appears CVR 7.l(i) appears directly directly applicable
applicable to
to the
the pre-judgment
pre-judgment Decision
Decision and
and Order
Order sought
sought to be
reconsidered here, here, the
the Court
Court relies
relies upon
upon that
that rule
rule in
in reviewing
reviewing reconsideration.
B. Goonewardene Goonewardene isisthe
theproper
propertest
testfor
fordetermining
determiningthird-party
third-party beneficiary
status. status.
In determining that Richard was not a third-party beneficiary of of a Lease Agreement
Agreement
between his co-tenants and their lessees, the Court relied on the California Supreme Court case, between
~.i»'.ln»»\ . L1 V\hunH\!HL
CV0760-16 DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN 6 Page 6
THE THE ALTERNATIVE CLARIFICATION; MOTION MOTION FOR
FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; AND MOTION
MOTION TO
TO RECONSIDER
Goonewardene, 434 P.3d P.3d124.
124. The
The Court
Court specifically
specifically found
found that
that Richard failed
failed to
to demonstrate
demonstrate a
genuine issue of material issue of material fact that the motivating purpose of of the Lease Agreement
Agreement was to benefit
of three prongs of
Richard, which is the second of of the test to establish one's status as as aa third-party
beneficiary. beneficiary. Dec.
Dec.&&Order
OrderRe
ReDefs.'
Defs.'Mot.
Mot.Summ.
Summ.J.J.atat4.4. The
The Court
Courtfocused
focused on
on what
what was
was the
singular motivating motivating purpose purpose for
for the
the Lease
Lease Agreement:
[T]he purpose purpose of of the
the Lease
Lease was
was for
for the
the Lessons
Lessors to
to lease
lease their interests in
several parcels several parcels owned owned by bymembers
membersof ofthe
theMoylan
Moylanfamily
familytotothethe
Lessees.
Lessees....
The Lease then recites standard lease terms between the parties, such as the duration, the amount ofrent, rent, the rights rights of possession and quiet enjoyment, the responsibilities for maintenance, repairs and improvement, and the impact of of a default. default. Among Among the the sixteen
sixteen pages
pages of
ofthe
the Lease,
Lease, Richard
Richard is mentioned only as it pertains to his interest interest in
in Lot
LotNo.
No. 105
1051.l
Id. Id.
Richard Richard argued at at the
the motion
motion hearing
hearing that
thatGoonewardene-a
Goonewardene-a case involving an case involving an employee
suing a payroll payroll services services provider-is
provider-is limited
limitedto
to employment
employmentsituations.
situations. To
Tothe
the extent
extent this
this is an
argument that the Court Court should not consider Goonewardene, Goonewardene, the Court disagrees.
disagrees. As a first
first
point, point, subsequent caselaw confirms subsequent caselaw confirms that Goonewardene s Goonewardene 's three-part test extended beyond
employment employment situations. See Wexler Wexler v. Cal.
Cal. FAIR
FAIR Plan
Plan Assn., 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d ad 398 (Ct. App.
App.
2021) (applying (applying test to an insurance insurancepolicy);
policy), Mahram
Mahram vv. The
The Kroger Co., 324 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575
(Ct. App.
App. 2024)
2024) (applying test to
to an arbitration agreement).
Moreover, Moreover, in Goonewardene, the California Supreme Court indicated they were generally
addressing the doctrine of of third-party beneficiaries, as well as California's statute on third-party
beneficiaries, beneficiaries, which whichmirrors
mirrorsGuam's
Guam'stotothis
thisday.
day.Goonewardene,
Goonewardene, 434
434P.3d
P.3d at
at 131.
131. That statute,
originally originallyenacted enacted in California
Californiain
in1872,
1872, provides,
provides, "A
"Acontract,
contract, made expressly for made expressly for the
the benefit
benefit of
of
a third person, may be enforced by him at any time before the parties parties thereto
thereto rescind
rescind it."
it." 18
18
GCA GCA §§ 85204;
85204, Cal.
Cal. Civ.
Civ. Code§
Code § 1559.
1559. In
In reviewing
reviewing the
the California
California counterpart on third-party counterpart on third-party
' I'I', |
n j ~ "1 HUH ·. 1
F ..
l;\j V, I j~/):. '. "\E©nli\Huu
CV0760-16 DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN DECISION Page 7 THE ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE CLARIFICATION; MOTION FOR SUMMARY SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER
beneficiaries, the California California Supreme struggles to Supreme Court recognized courts' struggles to "formulate "formulate useful,
general principles to identify those circumstances circumstances in
in which
which aa third party should should be permitted to
maintain an maintain an action action for an alleged
alleged breach
breach of
of a contract to which it Ir is
is not
not aa contracting
contracting party."
party." Id.
In In following followingGoonewardene,
Goonewardene, this
this Court
Courtutilized
utilizedaa sound
sound standard
standard generally applicable for
contracts and for determining determining whether Richard attained third-party third-pany beneficiary status. See also
Lucan Lujan v. JETH J.L.H Trust, Trust, 2016 Guam 241124
,i ("Where we have adopted ("Where adopted California Californiastatutes,
statutes,
California Californiacase case law
law interpreting
interpretingthose
those statutes
statutes stands as persuasive stands as persuasiveauthority.").
authority.").
c. C. Court reconsiders The Court reconsiders "motivating "motivating purpose."
purpose."
In In its its initial
initialreview,
review, the
the Court
Court focused
focused on
on the overall motivating motivating purpose
purpose of
ofthe
the parties
parties to
Agreement and found that it was not made expressly the Lease Agreement expressly for for the benefit of Richard.
However, However, the the Court Court recognizes
recognizes that iixrther
further caselaw interpreting Goonewardene has shed caselaw interpreting shed light light on
99
how to to examine examine the second second prong
prong relative
relative to
to "motivating
"motivating purpose.
purpose."
Shortly after after the
the Court issued its May 13, 2022 Decision 13, 2022 Decision and
and Order,
Order, the
theCalifornia
California Court
of of Appeal issued City City of
ofOakland
Oakland u
v. Oakland
Oakland Raiders, 299 Cal. Rptr. 3d 463 (Ct. App. 2022).
There, the City of ofOakland
Oakland sued
sued the National Football Football League
League and
and its
its member
member clubs, claiming to
be a third-party third-party beneficiary beneficiary of
of NFL
NFL policies
policies related relocation. Id relatedtotorelocation. Id at 471.
471. Although the City
of ultimately did of Oakland ultimately did not not prevail
prevail in
in proving
proving itself
itselfto
to be
be a third-party beneficiary of of those
policies, the Court of Appeal Appeal clarified
clarified that Goonewardene Goonewardene did not limit limit the "motivating
"motivating purpose"
prong prong to one singular purpose.
purpose. Id.
Id. at
at 474-75.
474-75. Indeed,
Indeed, there
there can multiple motivating can be multiple motivating purposes.
purposes.
[T]he [T]he League's adoption of the revised revised Relocation
Relocation Policy
Policy ...
... shows
shows a
'motivating 'motivating purpose'
purpose' of ofthe
the new
new Policy
Policy was
was to provide
provide aa benefit to cities that host member member clubs.
clubs. There may have been been other other motivations
motivations ...
..., ,such
such as
as
avoiding avoiding antitrust antitrust liability
liabilityand
andprotecting
protectingthe
theLeague's
League'sbusiness
business interests,
interests, but
those motivations do do not exclude exclude the
thepossibility
possibility of
of additional
additional motivating
purposes. purposes.
Mn I
'§'l"\iuuz\id'*A
CV0760-16 DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN AND ORDER Page Page 8
THE ALTERNATIVE CLARIFICATION; MOTION FOR SUMMARY SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; AND
AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Id. at 475 475 (emphasis added).
Goonewardene, it now has the benefit of Three years after this Court first applied Goonewardene, of an
improved improved understanding understanding how how that
that case
case applies
applies here
here and
and finds that there has been a material
change in the law warranting reconsideration under under CVR
CVR 7.1. Court's May
7.1. The Court's May 13,
13, 2022
Decision and Order Re Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Judgment focused on
on the overriding
motivating motivatingpurpose purpose behind
behind the
the Lease
Lease and
and determined that protecting Richard Richard was not the
principal purpose. However, However,the
the Court
Court finds
finds that
that since
since there
there can be multiple motivating
purposes, there there are
are issues
issuesof
of fact
fact whether
whether one
one motivating
motivating purpose was
was to
to afford
afford Richard some
protection protection as as a co-tenant by requiring requiring that
that his
his permission
permission be obtained "before "before the
the said
said lots
lots can
can be
used by Lessees." Lease LeaseAgreement 12. For
Agreement112. Forexample, example, Richard
Richard points
points out
out that
that the negotiated
rent could have the issue of Richard's permission, or have been higher but for the or that the Moylan family
went out of its way to ensure Richard gained aa benefit benefit from
from the Lease.
Lease. These protections
protections for
for
Richard Richard are not unnoticed by this Court in its original original analysis
analysis and
and introduce questions of of fact.
Since the Court now determines determines that
that there are issues of
of fact as to the second prong, it
turns to the third prong, which which the
the Court
Court did
did not
not address
address in its
its May 13,
13, 2022 Decision and Order.
That prong examines whether whether permitting
permitting the
the third
third party to bring its own own breach
breach of
of contract action
against a contracting party is "consistent "consistent with
with the objectives of
of the contract and the reasonable
expectations of of the contracting parties."
parties." Goonewardene,
Goonewardene, 434 P.3d
P.3d at
at 133.
133. "[T]his
"[T]his element
element calls
for aa judgment regarding the potential effect that permitting third party enforcement would have
on the parties' contracting goals, goals, rather
rather than a determination whether whether the parties
parties actually
anticipated third party enforcement at at the
thetime
timethe
thecontract
contractwas
wasentered
enteredinto."
into."Id.
Id. The Court
finds it plausible that permitting third-party enforcement was consistent consistent with
with the
the parties
parties'
contracting goals. As As the
the Estate
Estate characterizes
characterizes it,
it, the Lease Agreement
Agreement allows the Lessors to
-if .. no u .;'\au»nvi=\
CV0760-16 DECISION AND ORDER DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN Page9 Page
ALTERNATIVE CLARIFICATION; MOTION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; AND
AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER
"wash their "wash their hands" of having hands" of having to
to involve
involve Richard:
Richard: "it
"it is
is understood
understood that the permission of
E. Moylan Richard E. Moylan is is necessary before the said lot lot can
can be
be used
used by
by Lessees. It shall be the sole Lessees. It
as
responsibility of Lessees to obtain permission firm from Richard
Richard E.
E. Moylan
Moylan to
to occupy
occupy Lot
Lot No. 1051.
1051."
Agreement ,i1]2.
Lease Agreement 2. By this this plain
plain language, that the language, the Court derives that the only only person
person who
who would
would
enforce the requirement of Richard's consent would would be Richard.
The Court recognizes that this point is is not
not fully
filly developed in the
the course
course of
of summary
summary
briefing or
judgment briefing or reconsideration.
reconsideration. The
The Court
Court finds
finds that
that itit ultimately
ultimatelyremains
remains an
an issue of
of fact
whether Richard holds third-party beneficiary beneficiary status, and that the trier of fact must determine
whether all three Goonewardene prongs are met. whether
v. V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court GRANTS
GRANTS Richard's
Richard's May
May 16, 2022 Motion for Reconsideration,l1 and will 16, 2022
allow the breach of contract claim to to proceed to
to trial.
trial, The remaining motions are are determined
determined to
have already been addressed in other rulings.
SO ORDERED this 29 September 2025. . ;-""/>t-_ -~ ., / »:»
' EN ~"";/
HO N: HON, E"M.-lRIARTE ~,!.:.- ,._,, - ,. , - - - ::: '.
Judgé§'§Su1Jél=j_or Judge,,S_upeQor Coixjgt Court ofofGuam
Guam
- _,,..,,.... _;;,,- --.-
Appearing Attorneys: ··..,o._-
/ ; / ' / · ·:;;:
William Benjamin Pole, William Benjamin LawOffices Pole, Esq., Law William Officesofof WilliamB. B.
Pole, P.C.,l/f%r:1;!151inf{ff§éf[i*ey Pole, *.
P.C.,"fo'~n{j[f.::f~ffrey / S.
S.
Moylan Moylan asas Administrator of ofthe
the Estate of Richard
Estate of Richard E. Moylan .i?7%§"."
E. Moylan ·. :--.71~:,:(":-·· Mitchell MitchellF.F. Thompson, Thompson, Esq.,
Esq., Thompson
Thompson Thompson & Alcantara, Alcantara, P.C.,
P.C., for DefeNdant J5efendant E.C.
Development, Development, LLP LLP and
and Paseo
Paseo View Properties, Inc.
Jeffrey A. Cook, Esq., Esq., Law
Law Offices
Offices of
of Cunliffe
Cunliffe & Cook,
Cook, for
for Defendant
Defendant Axe Axe Murderer Murderer Tours Tours
Guam I/ Beach House
Douglas Douglas B. Moylan, Moylan, Esq.,
Esq., self-represented
11 The TheMotion Motion to Certify Certify Judgment
Judgment is moot.
ii no
L
W *LJ ft H\§ ;,