Sachdev v. Sachdev

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: February 9, 2018
• Docket: CV0626-11
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

F i L ED i:=.;;=I11R1OR COURT GF GUAM 1 znla egg -Q PH 3: 36 z 3 LEHK OF CGURT 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5 ) Civil Case No. CV0626-1 l 6 HA R G O P A L s . S A C HD E V, ) 7 ) Plaintiff, ) REFEREE'S DECISION AND 8 ) RECOMMENDATION ON 9 vs. ) PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 AMARJIT s. SACHDEV, PICHET ) ll SACHDEJ, PAUL'S (GUAM), INC., and ) 12 JPR,INC., ) ) la Defendants. ) 14 1 15 16 INTRODUCTION 17 This matter came before Alberto E. Tolentino, Referee, on Plaintiffs Request for Order 18 19 to Show Cause that was filed on December 4, 2017. Plaintiff was represented by attorney Daniel

20 J. Berman. Defendants, by and through their attorney Jon R. Ramps, filed their opposition to the 21 request onDecember 18, 2017. Plaintiff filed his reply on January 8, 2018. On January ll, 2 0 1 8 , 22

23 oral argument on the request was received by the Referee. The Referee having considered the

24 parties' arguments, briefs, the court's file, and the applicable law now issues t he f o llo wi ng 25 26 Decision and Recommendation.

27 BACKGROUND 28 This matter arose firm a complaint that was Sled on April 6, 2011, by Plaintiff Hargopal 29 30 Sachdev ("Roger") against his brothers Amarjit Sachdev ("Jim") and Picher Sachdej ("Paul")

31 and the two corporate defendants Paul's (Guam), Inc. and JPR, Inc. which alleged a number of 32 causes of action. See Comal. (Apr. 6, 2011). As the case was proceeding, the parties filed a Joint 1 Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Arbitration and a Joint Submission of Revised Order Staying

2 Litigation Pending Arbitration on October 11 and November 7, 2012, respectively. The trial 3 4 court ordered the matter stayed pending the completion of arbitration. See Order (Feb. 15, 2013),

5 On May 1, 2017, Roger filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Awards. According to the

j petition, between October 10, 2012 and March 20, 2017, die parties had engaged in both formal

8 arbitration and mediation proceedings wherein witnesses were called and evidence was

9 presented. See Pet. at p.2 (May 1, 2017). On March 19, 2014, the arbitrator rendered his

1? provisional arbitration award in writing. Id. The arbitrator had also rendered a subsequent

12 arbitration award and a final supplemental arbitration award on April 25, 2015, and March 20, 13 2017, respectively ld. The petition alleged the failure of the Defendants to make payment and 14 15 perform the requirements set forth in the Supplemental Arbitration Award. Id. Roger thus

16 requested for an Order confirming Me Arbitrator's supplemental arbitration award and for the 17 "entry of Judgment in conformity therewith." Id. at p.3. 18 19 On May 30, 2017, Defendants filed a non-opposition to the petition to confirm the

20 arbitration awards and also requested for a continuance of the hearing on the petition in order to 21 complete settlement negotiations. Plaintiff replied with his opposition to continue the hearing 22 23 and also included a proposed finaljudgment for the trial court's review andapproval, 24 On June 16, 2017, at the hearing before the trial court on the petition to confirm 25 26 arbitration awards Defendants again requested for additional time. It appears that the trial court

27 denied the request for more time and subsequently executed Me proposal final judgment 28 submitted by Me Plaintiff on June 21, 2017, That judgment was entered on the docket on June 29 30 28, 2017. 31 The case was transferred to the Superior Court of Guam's Master Case Calendar 32 ("MCC") on June 29, 2017. The Magistrate Judge is empowered to "preside over post-judgmem 1 collection proceedings in civil cases." See 7 GCA §4401(c)(3) (2015). The undersigned was

2 a ppo inte d a s R e f e r e e in the c ivil c o lle c tio n do c ke t to he a r the s e c a s e s a nd ma ke

i recommendations to the Magistrate Judge, as necessary.

5 Roger Bled the instant Request for Order to Show Cause and Order to Show Cause 6 alleging that the Defendants failed their duty under the judgment to "make a contribution of 7

8 $100,000.00 to a licensed tax-exempt charity on the name of Tera Singh Sachdev, and shall

9 provide proof of such contribution to Plaintiff" Decl. and Request for Order to Show Cause; and 10 Order to Show Cause at p.1 (Dec. 4, 2017). He complains that instead of a money cont"bution

12 of $100,000.00 to a charity the Defendants delivered various school uniforms which they 13 claimed had a value of that amount to a private school in the name of Teja Singh Sachdev. Id. at 14 15 pp. 2-3. Defendants respond that they have fully complied with the final judgment by malting a

16 charitable contribution of school uniforms to St. John's School with a value of $100,000 and 17 giving proof to Plaintiff that such donation had been made. See Defendants' Rest. to Plaintiffs 18 19 Red. for Order to Show Cause (Dec. 18, 2017). The Defendants assert that the judgment did not

20 specify that the required charitable contribution must be a cash contribution. Id. at p.4. Further, 21 22 they argue that Plaintiffs valuation of its contribution was without merit. Id. They point out that

23 St. John's School conducted an independent calculation of the value of their charitable 24 contributionand concluded that the donation will provide the schoolover $100,000. Id. at p.5. 25 26 DISCUSSION

27 "The following acts or omissions are contempt of court: Disobedience of any lawful 28 29 judgment, order, or process of the court ..." 7 GCA §34lOl(a)(5)(2005). If judgment directs a

30 party to perform a specific act and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court 3l may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party, See Guam R, Civ. P. 70 (2014), 32 The win may also in proper cases adjudge the party in contempt. Id. The elements of contempt l are generally: "1) a valid order, 2) knowledge of the order, 3) ability to comply with the order,

2 and 4) wiI1M failure to comply with the cider." Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 2003 Guam 8 1115 3 (citation omitted)(overruled on other grounds in Paguio v. Paguio, 2014 Guam 36 1115 ("W e 4 5 now overrule Rodriguez to the extent flat we find section 25l02(a) denies this court jurisdiction

8 over appeals of contempt orders.")).

8 A VALID ORDER AND KNOWLEDGE T HEREOF

9 Neither party has questionedthe validity of the Judgment in this case. The Judgment was 10 11 entered by the trial court upon Plaintiffs Motion to Confirm Arbitration Awards and upon

12 Defendants' Non-Opposition to the petition and alter a hearing on the Petition on June 16, 2017 13 See Judgment (Jun. 28, 2017) For the same reasons, neither do the parties deny lmowledge of 14 the Judgment and its obligations. Plaintiff submitted the proposed judgment which was adopted 15 16 by the court. Defendants, in their responsive pleading, acknowledged the pertinent obligations of

I; the judgment. See N on- Opp. and Mot'n to C ontinue H ear ing to Allow f or Settlement

19 Negotiations (May 30, 2017).

20 ABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER 21 Nothing was presented at the hearing on the request for an order to show cause that 22 23 indicatedDefendants were not able to comply with the order. What is at issue is the Defendants'

22 compliance or non-compliance with a specific provision of the Judgment as discussed below.

26 WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLY wratH THE ORDER 27 The specific provision of the judgment at issue stated: "Defezmdants shall make a 28 contribution of $100,000.00 to a licensed to-exempt charity in the name of Tera Sigh Sachdev, 29 30 and shall provide proof of such contribution to Plaintiff" Jud2Jnent at 113. Plaintiff argues that 31 the provision is in-ambiguous and flat it was the duty of the Defendants to make a contribution 32 of $100,000.00 to a licensed tax-exempt charity. On the other hand, Defendants have countered 1 that nothing in the judgment indicated that a charitable corMibution of the value of $100,000.00

2 could not have been made in the manner in which it was done. Furthermore, the Defendants 3 4 assert that the value of the uniforms they donated to St. Joh.n's School was in excess of $100,000.

5 Plaintiff responds that the alleged value of the donation was derived from a self-serving 6 declaration of value by the Defendants and that Roger, who hasbeen in the business ofretail sale 7 8 of uniforms for public and private schools, estimated a much lower valuation of the donated

9 uniforms. l0 In Lamb v.Hajinan, 2008 Guam 2, the Guam Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's 11 12 determination that the appellant was in contempt for his willful failure to provide spousal

13 support. La mb v. Hcj9nan, 2008 Guam 2. The parties were involved in contentious divorce 14 proceedings flat originate in the Canadian courts whereinthe judge ordered that appellant pay 15

16 to appellate C$2,391 per monde in child support and C$l0,000 per month in spousal support. Id. 17 at 1l2.The spousal support was to continue until such time the appellate received her share of the 18

19 division of matrimonial property. Id. The Canadian judge also ordered the transfer of certain

20 shares of stock the purpose of which was not entirely clear. Appellant moved to Guam and 2l appellate followed him here and sought to enforce the child and spousal support orders against 22 23 the appellant. Appellant had argued that he believe the orders pertaining to the transfer of the

24 shares of stock were to be used as a d to pay his support obligations. Id. at 116. The court 25 26 below affirmed the child support referee's Ending that the appellant was in contempt of court for

27 failing to pay child and spousal support and that the transfer of the shares of stock werepan of 28 29 the appellee's share of matrimonial assets. The Supreme Court observed that:

30 When a support order might be interpreted inmultiple ways,courts must consider whethera party's interpretation risesto the level of "willful failureto comply with 3l the order. Rodriguez, 2003 Guam 8 1115. In Sablosky v. Sablosky, the Connecticut 32 Supreme Court foundthe defendant to be in contempt for failing to pay a portion of his childreNs college tuition even though the phrase "undergraduate college student" was ambiguous. 784 A.2d 890,892-93 (Conn. 2001). The court 1 concluded that "an ambiguity in the rems of a judgment does not, as a matter of law, preclude a finding of contempt for the willful failure to comply with the 2 judgment." ld. This is particularly true where a party uses an ambiguity as an 3 excuse for entirely ignoring dieir support obligations. Ex parte Acker, 949 S.W.2d 3 14,3 19 (Tex. 1997). The policy reason that contempt can sometimes be 4 appropriate in such cases is that parties should be encouraged to petition the court 5 to clarify any ambiguities rather than resort to self help. Sablosky, 784 A.2d at 896. On the other hand, a good faith belief that a patty's interpretation of the 6 support order is correct may prevent a finding of wildness for purposes of 7 establishing contempt. Id. at 894, see also Blackwell v. Fulcrum, 652 S.E.2d 8 427,430-3 l (S.C. Ct. App. 2007) (finding that ex-wife was not in contempt was appropriate where she had a good faith belief that her support payments should be 9 reduced upon the emancipation of her daughter), Riddick v. Riddick, 906 So. 2d 10 813,826 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (ex-husband's good faith belief that he could delay tuition payments until the court clarified his obligations in light of his ex-wife's 11 breach of the marital agreement prevented a finding of contempt). 12 13 Id. at 1152. 14 The Co\.u1 agreed that appellant had a good faith argument to believe that the liquidation 15 of assets would be credited to his support obligations although the extent of which could not be 16

17 detennined on the basis of the record before it. Id. at 1151. The Court found that it was error for

18 the court below to End appellant in contempt for his failure to pay child support because he 19 continued to tender checks for child support even aler applying the liquidation proceeds as a 20 21 credit to his child support obligation.Id. at 1[53. However, the Court also found that that there

22 was no dispute that the appellate had not received her entire share of the matrimonial assets and 23 as such, the order of spousal support was still in effect and appellant showed no good faith 24 25 argument as to why he failed to meet his spousal support payments event after the credit. ld. at

26 11155-56. 27 28 In this case, the provision at issue in the Judgment had appearedand had been ordered in

29 the arbitration awards in one iteration or another. See Petition (May l, 2017). For example, the 30 court file indicates that according to the arbitrator, the parties had engaged in mediation in 3l 32 August 2012 wherein they agreed that "Jim was to make a $100,000 donation m a charity in the

name of Tera Sachdev." Id. at Exhibit "B" ((Provisional) Arbitration Award at p.3 (Mar. 19, l 2014)) Them, aler deciding on the division of several properties at issue, the arbitrator again

2 ordered in his award that "[p]ursuant to the 2012 Agreement, within sixty days of Closing, Jim 3 and Paul shall personally make a contribution to a licensed tax exempt charity in the name of 4 5 Tera Singh Sachdev, and shall provide proof of such payment to Roger." Id. at p.10. After the

issuance of the provisional arbitration award, the pomes had the opportunity to make or false 7 8 objections they may have had. This resulted in the issuance of the subsequent final arbitration

9 award. Id. at Exhibit "C" (Arbitration Award (Apr. 24, 2015)).There, the arbitrator again slated 10 11 that "[p]ursuant to the 2012 Agreement, within sixty days of Closing, Jim and Paul shall

12 personally make a contribution of $100,000 to a licensed tax exempt charity in the name of Teja 13 Singh Sachdev, and shall provide proof of such payment to Roger." Id at p.13. A supplemental 14 arbitration award was issued by the arbitrator that ostensibly resolved some outstanding issues 15 16 between the parties. Id. at Exhibit "D" (Supplemental Arbitration Award (Mar. 20, 2017)). It was 17 provided as follows: "Pursuant to the 2012 Agreement, within ninety days of Closing, Jim and 18 19 Paul collectively shall make a contribution of $100,000 to a licensed tax exempt charity in the

20 name of Teja Singh Sachdev, and shall provide proof of such payment to Roger." Id. at p. 7. 21 (emphasis in original). The combined use of the words "contribution" and "payment" tend to 22 23 reasonably indicate, as advocated by the Plaintiff that money in the amount of $100,000 was 24 what was contemplated to be paid to a charity. 25 26 What has complicated matters is that Plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment, which was

27 eventually executed by the com which could have and should have been more accurate and 28 consistent with the award made by the arbitrator. It was not. Rather than unambiguously stating, 29 30 as the awards made clear, that Jim and Paul shall make a contribution of$100,000 to a licensed

31 tax exempt charity in the name of Tera Singh Sachdev and shall provide proof of such payment 32 l to Roger; the Plaintiff' s proffer of the language in the judgment made it more ambiguous than it

2 had to be. Neither party has filed a motion to clarify the judgment. 3 Thus, the question is whether the Defendants had a good faith belief that their 4 5 interpretation that the obligation under the Judgment could be discharged by the delivery of 6 $100,000.00 worth ofuniforms to SL John's School. 7

8 The requirement of a contribution was aflinued by the Defendants themselves in their

9 Non-Oppos ition to Petition to Confirm Arbitration Awards whic h was artic ulated as follows : 10 "Defendants agree to make a charitable contribution of the value of One Hundred Thousand

12 Dollars ($l00,000.00) to a Guam charity within six months of the date of an Order and J udgment

13 re nde re d fro m thi s Co urt ..." See Non-Oopln. a t p. z (Ma y 3 0 , 2 0 1 7 ). A fade reading of this 14 proposed interpretation of the arbitration awards and the resulting judgment appears to indicate 15

16 that a c ontri buti on other than money may s atis fy the Defendants ' obligation. Howev er, as

11 discussed above, it is qualitatively different from the consistent descriptions of the obligation as

19 made by the arbitrator in his arbitration awards

20 It seems clear to the Referee that the charitable contribution required of the Defendants 21 was a money donation of $100,000. Each of the arbitration awards required that Jim "ma ke a 22

23 $100,000 donation to a charity" then that "Jim and Paul shall personally make a contribution to a

i ; licensed lax exempt charity and shall provide proof of such payment" then that "Jim and Paul

26 shall personally make a contribution of $100,000 to a licensed tax exempt charity and shall

27 provide proof of such payment to Roger" and Finally that "Jim and Paul collectively shall make a 28 contribution of $100,000 to a licensed tax exempt charity and shall provide proof of such 29 30 pa y me nt t o Ro ge r. " De f e nda nt s ' i nt e rpre t a t i o n t ha t a "c ha ri t a ble do na t i o n o f t he v a lue o f

31 $100,000 toa Guam charity" was required does not square withtautology used in the arbitration 32 awards. 1 Thus, the Referee kinds that thejudgment in this case required the Defendants tomake a

2 money contribution of $100,000 to a tax exempt charity in the name of Teja Singh Sachdev and 3 4 to provide proof that the payment was made to the Plaintiff The Defendants' interpretation of

5 the judgment, to wit: that another form of charitable contribution could be made so long as it had

a value of $100,000, was not in good faith because it was inconsistent with the arbitration awards 7 g that were ordered by the arbitrator and upon which the Judgment was issued.

9 RECOMMENDATION 10 Based on the foregoing, the Referee recommends w the Magistrate Judge that the 11 12 Defendants be found in contempt for` willMly failing to comply with the terms of the Judgment.

13 The Referee also recommends that further proceedings be scheduled to determine whether and to 14 15 what extent Defendants should be given credit for the property it had delivered to St. John's

16 School. 17 18 19 20 so ORDERED this dayo f Fennazasa 9 2017. 21 22 I II III llllll II | 23 24 < <-ll*l _ 25 HONORABLE ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO Referee, 26 SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 27 28 29 30 31 32

D.6an4a»>` 0krl$'fl1ve Ni .'Ll4II€@3~'LI5/"I AlamoS: Uauq av °1l