Romero v. Romero

Opinion

Fl LE F! LEDD SUUERIOFI count' ,...,J,' 0 ERIOR COUT•'• ,;, I 1\! OF GUAM I1 202% Aus 202~ AUG 2020AM AHl!:I!! 25 2 CLER!, UF CLERK Of COURT COURT

3 BY= 4

5 IN THE THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 6 DOREEN REYES ROMERO, 7 Plaintiff Domestic Case No. DM0458-20 Plaintiff, 8 ' 9 9 vs. vs. DECISION DECISION AND ORDER (Motion (Motion to to Enforce Enforce Settlement) Settlement) 10 10 MARIO LYNN LYNN ROMERO, 11 Defendant. Defendant. 12 12

13 13

14 14 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

15 15 This matter came before matter came before the theHonorable Honorable John John C. C. Terlaje Terlaje on June June 18, 18, 2024, 2024,for for aaMotion Motion

16 16 Hearing on Doreen Reyes Reyes Romero's Romero's ("Plaintiffs") ("Plaintiff's") Motion Motionto to Enforce EnforceSettlement. Settlement. The proposed 17 17 settlement pertainstotoPlaintiff's settlement pertains Plaintiff's ex-husband, ex-husband,Mario Mario Lynn Lynn Romero ("Defendant."). ("Defendant."). Attorney 18 18 Jeffrey A. Cook Cook ("Cook") ("Cook")appeared appeared for for Plaintiff. Plaintiff. Attorney Attorney William William Gavras Gavras ("Gavras") ("Gavras") appeared appeared 19 19 for Defendant. Defendant. Based on on the the relevant law and authorities relevant law the Court authorities the Court now now issues issues the the following following 20 20 decision and order DENYING Plaintiffs Plaintiff'sMotion MotiontotoEnforce EnforceSettlement. Settlement. 21 BACKGROUND BA CK G ROU N 22 On On December December 30, 2020, 2020, Plaintiff Plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce from Defendant. Defendant. Comp!. Comal. 23 for for Divorce. Divorce. (Dec. (Dec. 30, 30, 2020). 2020). On OnJanuary January 13, 13, 2023, 2023, the the parties parties agreed agreed to direct direct the the matter to a 24

25 settlement judge, and, settlement judge, on January and, on January 17, 17,2023, 2023,the thematter matterwas wasassigned assignedtotothe theHonorable HonorableLinda Linda L. L.

26 Ingles for settlement conference.Points settlement conference. Points& & Auths. Autos. in Supp. of Mot. Mot. to to Enforce EnforceSettlement Settlement at I, at 1,

27 Decision Decision and and Order Case Case No. DM0458-20, DM0458-20, Romero Romero v. v. Romero Page Page 11 of7f 1I (Apr. 15, 2024). The 15, 2024). The parties parties then then had had several several settlement settlement conferences conferences with Judge Ingles on with Judge 2 February 14, February 14, 2023; 2023, March 3, 2023; 2023, March 10, 10, 2023, 2023; and and May 2023; and another settlement May 4, 2023, 3 conference scheduled for June 5, 2023. Id. Plaintiff Plaintiffclaims claims that that Defendant Defendant offered offered to settle for 4 the amount amount of$6,000.00 of$6,000.00 during the March 3, 2023, conference.Id. 2023, conference. Id at 2. 2. Following the settlement Following the 5

6 conferences, a negotiation between between parties took place place over over several several months. months. On June 2, 2023, On June 2023,

7 during negations, tis tis matter was assigned to to this court. Notice Notice of ofJ. J. Assignment (June (June 2, 2023).

8 The relevant facts regarding the negotiation negotiation are as asfollows: follows:

9 I. On 1. OnMay May9,9,2023, 2023,Plaintiff Plaintiffsent sentDefendant Defendant an an email email agreeing agreeing to to settle settle the matter matter for 10 10 $6,000.00, the amount $6,000.00, the amount allegedly allegedly offered offered by by Defendant Defendant during during the the March 3, 3, 2023, 2023, 11 11 as conference. Id. at at "Exhibit A." 12 12 2. On OnJune June2, 2, 2023, 2023, Defendant Defendant submitted submitted their Notice Notice to to Court Court of ofExpected Expected Settlement Settlement and 13 Request to Vacate Vacate Settlement SettlementConference; Conference, and Order.Id. andOrder. Id ate. 2. The Settlement Conference 14 scheduled for for June June 5, 2023, was vacated vacated and andthe theOrder Order was wasfiled filed on June June 12, 12, 2023. 2023.Notice Notice 15 15

to ct. Ct. of ofExpected Expected Settlement Settlement & Request Request to Vacate Settlement Cont (June Settlement Conf. (June 12, 12, 2023). 16 16

17 17 3. On OnJuly July19, 19,2023, 2023, Plaintiff Plaintiffsent sent Defendant Defendant aa draw draft for Stipulated Interlocutory and Final

18 18 Decrees of Divorce, Divorce, which which contained contained the the terms terms allegedly agree agree to during during the conference.

19 19 Points Points & Auths. Auths. in in Supp. Supp. of Mot. Mot. to to Enforce Enforce Settlement at 22 and Settlement at and 5,5,"Exhibit "Exhibit B", B", (Apr- (Apr.

20 15, 2024). 21 21 4.. O On November 9, 2023, Defendant allegedly requested Plaintiff change requested that Plaintiff change the grounds 22 for divorce to irreconcilable differences. Id. irreconcilable differences. Id at 2. 23 OnJanuary 5. On January22, 22,2024, 2024, Plaintiff Plaintiff emailed emailed Defendant Defendant with with what they maintain maintain was was an 24 agreement to Defendant's agreement to Defendant's requested requestedchange changetotoirreconcilable differences.Id. irreconcilabledifferences. Id at 2. The 25 email email reads: "To get reads: "To get this this matter matter closed, my client closed, my client is agreeable to the grounds agreeable to grounds of 26 Decisionand Order 27 Case No. Case No. DM0458-20, Romero Romero v. Romero of7 Page 2 of 1I irreconcilable differences differences if Mr. Mr. Romero Romero will willpay paywhat whatwas was agreed agreed upon upon and and sign sign the the 2 decree by by the end of the end of the the month." month." Opp'n to to Pl.'s Pl.'sMot. Mot. to Enforce Settlement. Settlement. at at 66 (May (May 10, 3 2024). 2024). 4

On January 6. On January 31, 31, 2024, 2024, and and February February 7, 7, 2024, 2024, Plaintiff Plaintiff claims claims they they conversed conversed with 5

6 Defendant, and it was was their their understanding understanding that that "Defendant "Defendant was was not responding responding to his

7 Points & Auths. attorney." Points Auths. in in Supp. ofMot. Supp. of Mot. to to Enforce Enforce Settlement Settlement at at 3, (Apr. 15, 15, 2024).

8 7. On OnApril April15, 15,2024, 2024, Plaintiff Plaintifftiled filed their their Motion Motion to to Enforce Settlement. Id. Enforce Settlement. On May 10, Id On 10,

9 2024, Defendant filed their Opposition. Opp'n Opp'n to PL's Pl.'s Mot. to Enforce Settlement Settlement (May (May 10 10 10, 2024). On On June June4,4,2024, 2024,Plaintiff Plaintifffiled led their 10, 2024). theirReply. Reply.P1.'s Reply to Pl.'s Reply to Def.'s De£'s Opp'n Opp'n to to Mot. Mot. II 11 th to Enforce Enforce Settlement Settlement (June (June 14, 14, 2024). On June 18th, aReaa aMotion , after MotionHearing, Hearing, this this Court Court 12 12 took the matter under advisement. 13 13 DISCUSSION 14 14 Generally, "[a] "[a] trial trialcourt courthas has the the power powertotosummarily summarilyenforce enforceaasettlement settlement agreement agreement 15 15

entered into into by the litigants litigants while while the the litigation litigationisispending pendingbefore beforeit." it."Shamrock v. McCoy, 2016 Sharrockv. 16 16 th 17 Guam 7, 7, at at 77 77 (quoting United States (quoting United States v.v. Hardage, Hardage, 982 F.2d 1491. 1491. 1496 (10"' 1496 (10 Cir. 1993)). 1993)). The

18 parties parties must be beallowed allowed an an evidentiary evidentiary hearing "if "immaterial facts regarding 'the 'the existence existence or terms

19 ofan agreement of to settle agreement to settle are arein in dispute."' dispute."' Id, Id.;See See also also Mass. Mass. Cos. Ins. Co. Cas. Ins. Co. v. v. Forman, 469 F.2d F.2d

20 20 th Cir. 259, 260 (5th Cir. 1972) 1972) ("[W]here ("[W]here material facts facts concerning concerning the existence of of an an agreement agreement to 21 settle are in dispute, dispute, the entry of an order enforcing enforcing an an alleged alleged settlement settlement agreement without a agreement without 22 plenary hearing is improper."). 23 courts apply contract principles when interpreting a settlement agreement. Blas Guam courts Blas v. 24 Cruz, 2009 Guam Cruz, Guam 12 at 11. There are are three recognized elements of contract: (1) elements ofa (1) an offer, (2) 25 an acceptance, acceptance,and and(3) consideration.Id. (3)consideration. Id (quoting MobilOil (quoting Mobil OilGuam, Guam, Inc. Inc. v.v. Tendido, Tendido, 2004 2004 Guam 26

27 Decision and Decision and Order Case No. DM0458-20, Romero CaseNo. DM0458-20, v. Romero Roll/ero v. Page 3 of7 Page 1 1 7 at 34). 34). Additionally, Additionally, there must be "mutual assent assent to the terms essential essential to to the theformation formation of of aa 2 contract." Id. contract." In order Id In order to satisfy their their burden in establishing establishing the existence of of a contract contract a party 3 4 must show "an offer offerencompassing encompassing all all essential essential terms, terms, unequivocal acceptance acceptance by by the the offeree, offered, 4 consideration, and consideration, and an an intent intent to to be be bound." bound." Id. (citations omitted). Id (citations In determining omitted). In determining whether an 5

6 acceptance exists, the Bias Blas court held that:

7 ItIt is is hornbook hornbooklaw lawthat, that, to to ensure ensure mutual mutual consent consent of of the parties parties to to an an offer, offer, an offer offer mustmust be be mirrored mirroredby byitsitsacceptance acceptance to to create create a binding binding contract. contract. Because Because 8 the the offeror is entitled offerer is entitled to receive receive what it has has bargained for, if aa purported bargained for, purported 9 acceptance includesadditional acceptance includes additional terms terms to to which which the the offeror offerer did did not not assent, assent, the consequence consequence isis not not merely merely that that the the addition addition is not binding and that no contract 10 10 is formed, formed, but thatthat the offer is is rejected, and that rejected, and that the the offeree's offeree's power power of of acceptance thereafter is terminated. acceptance thereafter 11 11 Id. at at 19 19 (citing (citing Eenya Benya v. v. Stevena & Thompson Stevens & Thompson Paper Paper Co., Inc., 468 A.2d A.2d 929, 12 931 931 (Vt.1983) (internal citations omitted)). 13 13 The court in in Blas Blas refitsed refused to find find an an acceptance sincethe acceptance since thesettlement settlementdraft draftdid didnot notmirror minor 14 initial offer the initial offer but but rather rather added termsnot added new terms not in in the theoffer. offer. Id. Id 15 A. Was Wasaasettlement settlementagreement agreement entered entered into into by by the the litigants litigants in in this this case" case? 16

17 17 The Court answers this this question in the negative. negative. Defendant Defendant contends contendsthat that"Plaintiff "Plaintiff seems seems

18 to assert that Defendant assert that Defendant accepted acceptedan anoutstanding outstandingoffer. offer.However, However,while whilePlaintiff Plaintiff did make an

19 offer, that that offer offer was was refused, refused, thus thus extinguishing the offer." Opp'n extinguishing the Opp'n to to P1.'s Mot. to Enforce Pl.'s Mot. Enforce 20 Settlement Settlement atat 11 (May (May 10, 10, 2024). 2024). Further, Further, Defendant argues that Defendant argues that "even "even had had the the offer been been 21 accepted, accepted, aasettlement settlementwould would not not have been been consummated consummatedasasthe thegrounds groundsfor fordivorce divorce were were not 22 discussed," which were "essential discussed," which terms of "essential terms of the the contract." contract." Opp'n Opp'n to P1.'s Mot. to Enforce Pl.'s Mot. Enforce 23 Settlement (May 10, 2024) Settlement (May 2024) (citing (citing Shawn Shann v. v. Dunk, 84 F.3d F.3d 73, 78 n.3 n.3 (2d Cir. Cir. 1996), Cent. 24 Laborers'Pension Laborers' Pension Fund Fund v. v. AEH Constr., Inc.,No. Constr., Inc., No. CV CV 14-3052,.2015 14-3052,.2015 WL 1539003, at *3 1539003, at *3 (C.D. 25 ill. Mar. 31, 31, 2015), Mendel Kem, Kem, Inc. v. v. Workshop, Workshop, Inc., 508 508 N.E.2d 853, 855 (1987)). 853,855 26

27 Decision Decision and and Order Case No. No.DM0458-20, DM0458-20, Romero Romero v. Romero Romero Page Page 44 of7 1

1 I their Reply, In their Reply, Plaintiff Plaintiffcontends contends that that Defendant Defendant is is stating stating that that they they "refused "refused the the 2 settlement offer settlement offer thus thus extinguishing extinguishing it. it. However, Defendant does does not not provide any evidence to 3 4 support this refusal." support this P1.'s refusal." PL Reply to 's Reply Opp'n to De£'s Opp'n to Def.'s to Mot. Mot. to to Enforce Enforce Settlement at 1, Settlement at l, (June (June 14, 14, 4 2024). Further, 2024). Further,Plaintiff that "the parties Plaintiff points out that parties were were still in in settlement settlement mode, mode, going to 5 5 66 settlement conferences conferences with with Judge Judge Ingles" Ingles" and "negotiations "negotiations were were ongoing." ongoing." Id. at 2. Thus, "the Id at

7 matters being discussed were matters were still on on the table and and nothing nothinghad hadformally formally been beenrejected." rejected."Id. at 3. Id at

8 Finally, Plaintiff argues argues that that "the "the email email string string provided provided by by Defendant Defendant clearly clearly shows shows Defendant

9 groundsto asked for grounds to be beirreconcilable irreconcilable differences and and Plaintiff 1. Thus, at 1. Plaintiff agreed." Id. at Thus, "at "at that that 10 . . . . . point, the parties had point, had aa complete complete agreement agreementtotosettling setting this this divorce divorce case." Id at 4. case." Id. 11 11 The email string string referred to above contains the thefollowing following relevant excerpts: 12 COUNSEL COUNSELFOR FORDEFENDANT DEFENDANTonon Jan. Jan.3,3,2024, 2024, "He "He did did say say he would accept 13 13 the terms. terms.It's It's the grounds groundsfor for divorce divorce that thathe heobjected objectedto. to.IsIsur urclient clientunwilling unwilling to 14 1

settle on irreconcilable differences?" differences?" Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. Mot. to to Enforce Enforce Settlement, Settlement, 15

16 16 "Exhibit "Exhibit A" A"atat66 (may (May 10, 10, 2024). 2024).

17 COUNSEL FOR COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF on on Jan. Jan. 22, 22, 2024, 2024, "To "To get get this this matter closed, my

18 client is agreeable toirreconcilable agreeable to irreconcilabledifferences·if differencesif Mr. Mr. Romero Romero will will pay pay what what was

19 agreeduponand agreed upon sign sign the decree by the end of the month. month. Please Please find attached attached the

20 Stipulated Interlocutory Decree of Divorce Divorce with with the the revision revision as as to the grounds grounds of of 21 divorce divorce for for your your client's client'sreview reviewand andsignature. signature. Your Yourprompt promptattention attention and and response 22 to this matter matter isis greatly greatly appreciated." appreciated."Id. Id 23 DEFENDANT on Jan. zz, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 22, 2024, 2024, "ThaI1kS, "Thanks, Jeff." Jeff" Id. at 5. 24

27 Decision Decision and and Order Case Case No. DM0458-20, DM0458-20, Romerov. v. Romero Page Page 5 of7 1I COUNSELFOR COUNSEL FORPLA1NT1F1= on Jan. PLAINTIFF on Jan. 31, 31, 2024, 2024, "Bill: "Bill: Following Following up up on on the the 2 signed documents signed documentsfrom from your your client. client. Thank Thank you you for your attention attention and and prompt 3 response to response to this matter." Id. this matter." Id 4

5 Plaintiffsummarizes Plaintiff summarizes the the email email exchange, exchange, asserting asserting that "Defendant "Defendant requested requested that the

6 6 grounds be be irreconcilable irreconcilable differences and that that was was agreed agreedtotoby byPlaintiff." Pl.'s Reply to Def.'s Plaintiff" P1.'s

7 Opp'n to Mot. Mot. to to Enforce EnforceSettlement Settlement at at 4, 4, (June (June 14, 2024). 2024). Conversely, Defendant Defendant contends contends that

8 "this "this email email is is not an unequivocal unequivocal assertion that that Defendant Defendant would would accept acceptgrounds groundsof ofirreconcilable irreconcilable

9 differences, 9 _differences, it it is is a query to Plaintiffs query to Plaintiffs counsel counsel as as to his client's position. Accordingly, Accordingly, the the email 10 10 was not an anoffer offer which which could could be be accepted." Opp'nto accepted." Opp'n toPl.'s Pl.'sMot. Mot.to toEnforce Enforce Settlement. Settlement.atate (May 4 (May 11 II 10, 2024). However, whether or or not not these these emails constitute an offer offer or or acceptance, neither party acceptance, neither 12 12 acknowledges that that there therewas wasaacondition conditionthat thatwas wasnot notmet. met.Specifically, Specifically,Plaintiffs Plaintiffs condition that 13 their client would. "be "be agreeable if agreeable to irreconcilable differences U"Mr. Romero will pay what what was was 14 agreed upon and sign the decree by the the end end of of the the month." month." Id. atat66(emphasis (emphasis added). added). As As far far as as 15 15 16 this Court Court is is aware, aware, these conditions were not met. 16

17 Whether Plaintiffs conditional Whether Plaintiffs conditionalstatement statementwas was an an acceptance acceptance ((as arguedby as argued byPlaintiff) Plaintiff) or

18 perhaps perhaps a counteroffer (as implied by Defendant), Defendant), Defendant never paid the allegedly agreed agreed

19 amount and signed the decree upon amount decree by end of by the end of the month. month. Thus, Thus, a contract contract was was not not formed,

20 20 because the required because the required conditions conditions were were not not met. met. "If "If aa proposal proposal prescribes prescribes any any conditions conditions 21 21 concerning communication of concerning the communication of its its acceptance, the proposer acceptance, the proposer is is not bound unless they are are 22 conformed to conformed Union Fire ... " National Union to..." Fire Insurance Insurance Company Company of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgn, PA PA v. v. Cyfred, Cyjied, Ltd. Ltd 23 1] 40 citing 2015 Guam 7140 citing 18 GCA §85318 18 GCA (2005); see also §85318 (2005); also Lang v. Gates, Gates, 36 F.3d 73, 75 75 (9th 24 Cir. 1994) ("The offerer offerorisis the the master of his offer. offer.... [He] [He]isisentitled entitledto to insist insiston on aa particular particular mode 25

27 Decision and Decision and Order Case No. DM0458-20, Case Romero v. DM0458-20, Romero v. Romero Page 66 of7 off 1I of of manifestation manifestation of of assent.") assent.") (quoting (quoting Restatement (Second)of Restatement (Second) of Contracts§ Contracts §29 29cmt. cut. A A (1981)). (1981)). 2 Therefore, aa settlement agreement Therefore, agreement was wasnot not properly properly entered entered into into by the litigants in this litigants in this case. case. 3 CONCLUSION CONCLUSION AND AND ORDER 4

For the the above above reasons, reasons, the Court DENIES DENIES Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Motion MotiontotoEnforce EnforceSettlement Settlement 5

6 Agreement. Agreement.

7 Status Hearing is set for $0\etAL¢f// 79 AStatusHearingissetfor&q\:eMW 2,0l-1.f ~.A ZOZW M .Ji "\1DA'{1 Mia -zt,0M). 1"1DA"'.1 (vi61 gm), kli K 8

so SO ORDERED, this 72-e.l ORDERED, this p\ day of Pp£qIA,,§ 2024. 9 .';~\. 10 10 .,_\.\

11 11

12 HOP Ji~ LEE! 31115C.c.TERLAJE TERLAJE Judge, Sheémor-€'oLiT°*t'6f Guam 4 / -.- 13 Z/ 14 14

15 15 l %vov~n t:mr/\ 16 16 Mc0iiy\§ \D: Iv\(,~~ I\) 'LVL : l\ i 541 5L\ 1-7,0 b*{ 17 11 fNY:> ini t: Pm/)$l!l1t',: JIMJ J c;r 18 r Ta' 19 19

Decision and Order 27 Case NNo. DM0458-20, Case DM0458-20,Romero Romero v.v. Romero Romero Page 7 of7