Moylan v. Axe Murderer Tours Guam

Opinion

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;,,.: :Sy- s. 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\§ ;,