Salas v. Cruz

Opinion

FILED SUPERIOR COURT OFGUAM . 202 ~JJ\N -4 PH 4: 20

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM CLER/( OF COURT

ROBERT SALAS, CIVIL CASE NO. CV04~l'z:nr--:it~·- - -

Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER DENYING vs. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ANA C. CRUZ, ET AL.,

Defendants.

The Court here considers whether Plaintiff Robert Salas qualifies, as a matter oflaw, as

an innocent encroaching party under the relative hardship doctrine. Finding that there remain

issues of fact on this issue, the Court DENIES Salas' Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. UNDISPUTED FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Based on the record before the Court, the Court finds the following facts to be

undisputed:

I. In 2020, Salas acquired Lot 265-INEW-R3, Asan, Guam ("Lot 265"). Deel.

Robert Salas ("Salas Deel."), Ex. I (Sept. 15, 2023).

2. Lot 265 adjoins another parcel of real property described as Lot 266-1, Asan,

Guam ("Lot 266-1 "). Salas Deel., Ex. 2.

3. When Salas acquired his interest in Lot 265, a two-story concrete building already

existed on the property.

4. The building on Lot 265 encroaches onto Lot 266-1.

5. Salas concedes that the deed he signed referenced a map that showed the

encroachment. Min. Entry at 10:12:13 (Nov. 16, 2023).

ORIGINAL CV0456-22 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY Page2 JUDGMENT

6. The concrete building pre-existed Salas' purchase. Salas Deel. ,r 4. The building

on Lot 265 had been constructed and used as housing for military members. Salas Deel. ,r 6. The

federal government had returned the former military housing area, including Lot 265, to the

Government of Guam which, in turn, gave the real property to the heirs of its original owners.

Salas Deel., Ex. 3.

Salas filed this lawsuit against the successors in interest of the late Asuncion Concepcion

Cruz and the owners of Lot 266-1. Comp!. Declaratory J. (Aug. 29, 2022). He seeks a

declaration that is the owner of, or holds an interest in, the encroached-upon portion of Lot 266-

1, upon payment of the fair market value of such property to Defendants. Id. at 4. He moves for

summary judgment on his Complaint for a Declaratory Judgment. Defendant Edward G. Perez,

as Executor of the Estate of Rosa C. Perez, opposes Salas' motion.

II. LAW AND DISCUSSION

The Court may grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. GRCP

56(a). All reasonable inferences must be drawn in the opposing party's favor both where the

underlying facts are undisputed (e.g., background or contextual matters) and where they are in

controversy. Ukau v. Wang, 2016 Guam 26 ,r 73. At the summary judgment stage, the

nonmovant's version of any disputed issue of fact is presumed correct. Eastman Kodak Co. v.

Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451,456 (1992).

In cases involving the removal of encroaching structures, courts apply a three-part test,

otherwise known as the relative hardship doctrine. First, the encroaching party must be innocent.

Ma v. Mt. Son, LLC, 2023 WL 2008443 (Cal. Ct. App.). Second, "unless the rights of the public

would be harmed, the court should grant the injunction if the plaintiff 'will suffer irreparable

ORIGINAL CV0456-22 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY Page 3 JUDGMENT

mJury ... regardless of the injury to defendant."' Barry v. Block, 2008 WL 3586935 at *5 (Cal.

Ct. App.). Third, the hardship to the encroacher must be greatly disproportionate to the hardship

caused to the other party by the continuance of the encroachment. Id. The parties here agree that

the doctrine of relative hardship governs the Court's analysis. Moreover, as Perez offered no

discussion on the second and third prongs of the relative hardship test, the Court focuses on the

first prong.

For a party to be innocent under the doctrine of relative hardship, the encroachment must

not be the result of the encroaching party's willfulness or even negligence. Christensen v.

Tucker, 250 P.2d 660,665 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1952). Doubtful cases should be decided in favor

of the non-encroaching party. Id.

Salas claims that he stands innocent because he did not cause the initial encroachment

and because he did not have constructive notice of the encroachment. On Salas' first point,

contrary to his representation, his status as a successor to the original encroacher does not

automatically qualify him as innocent. Innocence depends on one's intent and state of mind.

Barry, 2008 WL 3586935 at #6; Ma, 2023 WL 2008443 at *8 (the encroaching party's innocent

intent is "paramount"). Barry specifically rejected a test that focused on the intent of the party

who constructed the encroachments, instead adopting language in Christensen and Hirschfield v.

Schwartz, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 861 (Ct. App. 2001), that focused on a party's state of mind.

In addressing a party's innocence, Courts have also reviewed the documentation available

to the party at the time they purchased the property. For example, where a party is given a map

of the property with accurate landmarks but inaccurate property lines and the grant deed itself

also references said map the Court has found the encroaching party innocent. Sprankles v.

Sullivan, 2020 WL 4875429 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2020). Also, in Romero v. Shih, 293 Cal.

ORIGINAL CV0456-22 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY Page4 JUDGMENT

Rptr. 3d 477,502 (Ct. App. 2022), review granted, 514 P.3d 233 (Cal. 2022), to detennine the

buyers' innocence, the court considered evidence of efforts made by the buyers to review

surveys, easements, encroachments or boundary disputes.

Sprankles and Romero both concluded that the purchasers of encroaching properties were

innocent. But it was not their status as purchasers that qualified them as innocent. Rather, in

determining innocence, the courts examined the buyers' actions in the course of the transaction,

and whether their actions were negligent or willful.

Here, Salas concedes that the deed he signed referenced a map that shows the

encroachment. Looking at this undisputed fact in a light favorable to the non-movant, the Court

cannot conclude as a matter oflaw that Salas is innocent. The map, had Salas seen it, indicates

that an encroachment existed. While Salas did not cause the encroachment, there is still a

question of fact whether he is innocent in his encroachment.

III. CONCLUSION

As there is still a question of fact as to Salas' innocence, his Motion for Summary

Judgment is DENIED.

This matter shall proceed to trial as scheduled.

SO ORDERED this 4 January 2024.

HON, ' ' ZE \M. IRIARTE \ ', '

Judge,\Sup~rior Court of Guam ' I ' l

Appearing Attorneys: Mitchell F. Thompson, Esq., Thompson Thompson & Alcantara, P.C. for Plaintiff Robert Salas Jeffrey A. Cook, Esq., Cunliffe & Cook for Defendant Edward G. Perez

ORIGINAL