rr1 l- Er- .. J SUPERIOR COURT Of GUAM 2 202~ JAN -8 PM 3: 50 3 CLER!{ OF COURT 4
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 SAING KUI KIM, DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0472-18 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. DECISION AND ORDER II
12 JAEUN KATHY YU, 13 Defendant. 14
15 INTRODUCTION
16 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on October 27, 2023, for hearing
17 on PlaintiffSaing Kui Kim's ("Plaintiff') Motion to Reconsider Findings of Fact and Conclusions
18 of Law ("Motion to Reconsider"). Present were Plaintiff with counsel, Joaquin C. Arriola, Jr.,
19 and Defendant Jaeun Kathy Yu ("Defendant") with counsel Daron Berman. Having reviewed the
20 pleadings, the arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision
21 and Order.
22 BACKGROUND
23 On July 30, 2023, the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law after
24 twenty days of trial, dissolving the parties' marriage based on irreconcilable differences and
25 distributing property and debt to the parties. On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion
26 to Reconsider. On September 25, 2023, Defendant filed her Opposition to the Motion and on
27 October 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Reply. On October 27, 2023, the Court heard arguments on
28 the Motion and subsequently placed the matter under advisement.
Kim v. Yu Case No. DM0472-l 8 Decision and Order
Page 1 ofS DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the July 20, 2023 Findings of Fact and Conclusions
3 of Law pursuant to Superior Court of Guam Local Rule CVR 7.1 (i) and Guam Rules of Civil 4 Procedure ("GRCP") 60(b)(l). See generally, Mot. Reconsideration, Aug. 23, 2023. Local Rule
5 CVR 7.l(i) provides that: 6 A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made only on the grounds of 7 ( 1) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such 8 decision that in the exercise ofreasonable diligence could not have been known 9 to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or, (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time IO of such decision, or, II (3) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the court 12 before such decision.
13 No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion. 14 Super. Ct. Guam R. CVR 7 .1 (i). GRCP Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part that: 15 (b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; 16 Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party 17 or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: 18 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 19
20 (6) any other reason justifying relief from operation of the judgment. 21 The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1 ), (2), (3) not 22 more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. 23 Guam R. Civ. P. 60(b). As the request for reconsideration is for the Findings of Fact and 24 Conclusions of Law, and not a decision on a motion, the Court finds that GRCP Rule 60(b) applies 25 and not Local Rule CVR7.l(i). "Rule 60(b)(l) authorizes a court to grant relief from judgments 26 for 'mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.' The 'mistakes' of judges may be 27 remedied under this provision. The rule encompasses mistakes in the application of the law." 28
Kim v. Yu Case No. DM0472-18 Decision and Order
Page2of5 Cristobal v. Siegel, 2012 Guam 16 ,i 8 (quoting Parks v. US. Life & Credit Corp., 677 F.2d 838, 2 839-40 (11th Cir.1982)). 3 At issue is the Court's awarding the entire MTM Building to Defendant as her separate 4 property. The Findings of Pact and Conclusions of Law set forth the following: 5 38. Prior to the parties' marriage, Defendant purchased a condo in Upper Tumon for $80,000.00 that she later sold for $ 1.5 million. With this money, Defendant 6 purchased a 12-unit apartment building and also started a restaurant business. 7 Several years later, Defendant sold the apartment building and the restaurant. In January 2003, Defendant purchased Lot 1117-4-Rl and the existing building 8 ("MTM Building") in MongMong-Toto-Maite during a foreclosure sale for 9 $350,000.00. IO 3 9. Defendant testified that when she purchased the MTM Building and lot, the 11 property owners indicated they were not ready to sell the adjacent properties (Lot 1116-1 B-Rl and Lot 1116-1 B-1) but that she could lease them until they were ready 12 to sell. Defendant entered into a thirty (30) year lease for the two lots. Defendant 13 paid $800.00 per month for the lease prior to purchasing the properties in July 2012 for $250,000.00. 14 40. At the time of Defendant's purchase in 2003, the MTM Building had significant 15 damage from Typhoon Pongsona. 16 41. Defendant testified that the building used to look just like a box. Defendant 17 renovated the building by adding staircases on each side of the building, windows, a walkway on the second floor, and a balcony railing. Defendant also testified that 18 she cleared the jungle area in the back of the building and paved it with asphalt. 19 Defendant also built a structure next to the building to house a generator, and 20 brought over a $100,000.00 generator from Korea. 42. Defendant estimated she spent $400,000.00 to do these renovations and that 21 they took over a year to complete. 22 *** 23 24. The Court finds that the MTM Building is Defendant's separate property 24 because she purchased and subsequently improved the building by adding 25 windows, staircases, balcony railings, and a walkway prior to the marriage. Defendant also built a structure to house a generator and brought over a 26 $100,000.00 generator from Korea. The Court is not convinced that Plaintiff 27 significantly contributed improvements during the marriage effecting the appreciated value of the property, which currently stands at $1,342,000.00. Absent 28
Page 3 ofS proof of the enhancement of a spouse's separate property, there should be no reimbursement to the community. Reinhart v. Reinhart, 2000 Guam 14 ,r,r 19-20 2 (citing Bliss v. Bliss, 898 P.2d 1081 (Idaho 1995)). 3 25. As to the MTM Property (Lot 11 l 7-R4-Rl, Lot 1116-IB-Rl, and Lot 1116-lB- 1), currently valued at $384,000.00, the Court finds that 1/3 of the land area (Lot 4 11 l 7-R4-Rl) is Defendant's separate property because it was purchased prior to 5 the parties' marriage ($384,000.00.,. 3 = $128,000.00). 6 26. As to the remaining 2/3 of the MTM property, the Court finds that because Lot 7 1116-IB-Rl and Lot 1116-lB-1 were purchased during the marriage, this portion of the MTM Property is community property, the value of which shall be distributed 8 equally between the parties ($128,000.00 each). 9 (FFCL at 7; 32, Jul. 20, 2023). Plaintiff argues that he "is entitled to ½ share of approximately IO 75% of the MTM Building comprising Lots 1, 2, and 3." (Mot. Reconsideration at 2). Plaintiff II sets forth that "the Court committed clear error when it found that Lot 2 and Lot 1116-1-B 1 ("Lot 12 3") were purchased during the marriage, yet the entire MTM Building, was not considered 13 community property.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
rr1 l- Er- .. J SUPERIOR COURT Of GUAM 2 202~ JAN -8 PM 3: 50 3 CLER!{ OF COURT 4
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 SAING KUI KIM, DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0472-18 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. DECISION AND ORDER II
12 JAEUN KATHY YU, 13 Defendant. 14
15 INTRODUCTION
16 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on October 27, 2023, for hearing
17 on PlaintiffSaing Kui Kim's ("Plaintiff') Motion to Reconsider Findings of Fact and Conclusions
18 of Law ("Motion to Reconsider"). Present were Plaintiff with counsel, Joaquin C. Arriola, Jr.,
19 and Defendant Jaeun Kathy Yu ("Defendant") with counsel Daron Berman. Having reviewed the
20 pleadings, the arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision
21 and Order.
22 BACKGROUND
23 On July 30, 2023, the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law after
24 twenty days of trial, dissolving the parties' marriage based on irreconcilable differences and
25 distributing property and debt to the parties. On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion
26 to Reconsider. On September 25, 2023, Defendant filed her Opposition to the Motion and on
27 October 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Reply. On October 27, 2023, the Court heard arguments on
28 the Motion and subsequently placed the matter under advisement.
Kim v. Yu Case No. DM0472-l 8 Decision and Order
Page 1 ofS DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the July 20, 2023 Findings of Fact and Conclusions
3 of Law pursuant to Superior Court of Guam Local Rule CVR 7.1 (i) and Guam Rules of Civil 4 Procedure ("GRCP") 60(b)(l). See generally, Mot. Reconsideration, Aug. 23, 2023. Local Rule
5 CVR 7.l(i) provides that: 6 A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made only on the grounds of 7 ( 1) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such 8 decision that in the exercise ofreasonable diligence could not have been known 9 to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or, (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time IO of such decision, or, II (3) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the court 12 before such decision.
13 No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion. 14 Super. Ct. Guam R. CVR 7 .1 (i). GRCP Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part that: 15 (b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; 16 Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party 17 or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: 18 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 19
20 (6) any other reason justifying relief from operation of the judgment. 21 The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1 ), (2), (3) not 22 more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. 23 Guam R. Civ. P. 60(b). As the request for reconsideration is for the Findings of Fact and 24 Conclusions of Law, and not a decision on a motion, the Court finds that GRCP Rule 60(b) applies 25 and not Local Rule CVR7.l(i). "Rule 60(b)(l) authorizes a court to grant relief from judgments 26 for 'mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.' The 'mistakes' of judges may be 27 remedied under this provision. The rule encompasses mistakes in the application of the law." 28
Kim v. Yu Case No. DM0472-18 Decision and Order
Page2of5 Cristobal v. Siegel, 2012 Guam 16 ,i 8 (quoting Parks v. US. Life & Credit Corp., 677 F.2d 838, 2 839-40 (11th Cir.1982)). 3 At issue is the Court's awarding the entire MTM Building to Defendant as her separate 4 property. The Findings of Pact and Conclusions of Law set forth the following: 5 38. Prior to the parties' marriage, Defendant purchased a condo in Upper Tumon for $80,000.00 that she later sold for $ 1.5 million. With this money, Defendant 6 purchased a 12-unit apartment building and also started a restaurant business. 7 Several years later, Defendant sold the apartment building and the restaurant. In January 2003, Defendant purchased Lot 1117-4-Rl and the existing building 8 ("MTM Building") in MongMong-Toto-Maite during a foreclosure sale for 9 $350,000.00. IO 3 9. Defendant testified that when she purchased the MTM Building and lot, the 11 property owners indicated they were not ready to sell the adjacent properties (Lot 1116-1 B-Rl and Lot 1116-1 B-1) but that she could lease them until they were ready 12 to sell. Defendant entered into a thirty (30) year lease for the two lots. Defendant 13 paid $800.00 per month for the lease prior to purchasing the properties in July 2012 for $250,000.00. 14 40. At the time of Defendant's purchase in 2003, the MTM Building had significant 15 damage from Typhoon Pongsona. 16 41. Defendant testified that the building used to look just like a box. Defendant 17 renovated the building by adding staircases on each side of the building, windows, a walkway on the second floor, and a balcony railing. Defendant also testified that 18 she cleared the jungle area in the back of the building and paved it with asphalt. 19 Defendant also built a structure next to the building to house a generator, and 20 brought over a $100,000.00 generator from Korea. 42. Defendant estimated she spent $400,000.00 to do these renovations and that 21 they took over a year to complete. 22 *** 23 24. The Court finds that the MTM Building is Defendant's separate property 24 because she purchased and subsequently improved the building by adding 25 windows, staircases, balcony railings, and a walkway prior to the marriage. Defendant also built a structure to house a generator and brought over a 26 $100,000.00 generator from Korea. The Court is not convinced that Plaintiff 27 significantly contributed improvements during the marriage effecting the appreciated value of the property, which currently stands at $1,342,000.00. Absent 28
Page 3 ofS proof of the enhancement of a spouse's separate property, there should be no reimbursement to the community. Reinhart v. Reinhart, 2000 Guam 14 ,r,r 19-20 2 (citing Bliss v. Bliss, 898 P.2d 1081 (Idaho 1995)). 3 25. As to the MTM Property (Lot 11 l 7-R4-Rl, Lot 1116-IB-Rl, and Lot 1116-lB- 1), currently valued at $384,000.00, the Court finds that 1/3 of the land area (Lot 4 11 l 7-R4-Rl) is Defendant's separate property because it was purchased prior to 5 the parties' marriage ($384,000.00.,. 3 = $128,000.00). 6 26. As to the remaining 2/3 of the MTM property, the Court finds that because Lot 7 1116-IB-Rl and Lot 1116-lB-1 were purchased during the marriage, this portion of the MTM Property is community property, the value of which shall be distributed 8 equally between the parties ($128,000.00 each). 9 (FFCL at 7; 32, Jul. 20, 2023). Plaintiff argues that he "is entitled to ½ share of approximately IO 75% of the MTM Building comprising Lots 1, 2, and 3." (Mot. Reconsideration at 2). Plaintiff II sets forth that "the Court committed clear error when it found that Lot 2 and Lot 1116-1-B 1 ("Lot 12 3") were purchased during the marriage, yet the entire MTM Building, was not considered 13 community property. The Court's finding that the MTM Building was the Defendant's separate 14 property was a mistake because the Court also found that the Coast 360 loan - the loan used to 15 repair and maintain the MTM Building - was a community debt." (Reply at 3) (emphasis in 16 original). Defendant opposes, arguing that the "Court properly analyzed the MTM Property, 17 considering all of the evidence re-submitted by the Plaintiff in his present motion, and as such its 18 findings should be upheld." (Opp'n at 3). 19 The Court acknowledges that the Coast 360 loan was deemed to be a community debt. 20 See FFCL at 30. However, the Court made the following findings regarding the Coast 360 loan: 21 61. In July 2012, the parties incurred a $600,000.00 mortgage loan from Coast 360. 22 The entire MTM property was mortgaged. The monthly payment on the loan was $4,212.50. The term was 120 months or 10 years. The promissory note was signed 23 by Defendant, and consented to by Plaintiff. 24 62. The Coast 360 loan was used to pay off the $250,000.00 Bank of Guam loan 25 received to get the Agat Property.
26 63. Defendant testified that the remaining amount of the Coast 360 loan was used to purchase machines for SK Laundromat. 27
Page4of5 64. Plaintiff testified that money generated from both businesses was used to pay the Coast 360 loan. 2 65. Since separation, Defendant has continued to make monthly payments. At the 3 time of trial, a balance of about $450,000.00 remained on the Coast 360 mortgage. 4 Id. at 9-10. The Court therefore did not make a finding that the Coast 360 loan was used to repair 5 and maintain the MTM Building, rather, that the loan was used for SK Laundromat, which the 6 Court determined was community property. The Court does not find that the purchase of Lots 2 7 and 3 and their subsequent distribution as community property changed the separate property 8 designation of the MTM Building. Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no basis for 9 reconsideration and denies Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider. 10 CONCLUSION II For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider 12 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 13
14 IT IS SO ORDERED this ~ a y of January, 2024. . : ' ' 15 '' I \ <· /,' ''
16 ~ i /4 . ·, _ ; _ ; _ '-,:-'-, __ 17 HONORABL:E VERNON P. PEREZ
18 ,'. 11 \
Judge, Supenbr~omrofGuam • "· ·---._
> ·1 l I
~-- ' ',.>- ',l 19
Page 5 ofS