I /<[ jdu)NtJ~ o !1 T
2012 AUG 22 PM 3: 59 2 ~ URT t
3 )L n
5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6
7 THOMAS S. M. SAN NICOLAS, ) DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0292-06 ) 8 Plaintiff, ) ) DECISION AND ORDER 9 v. ) JO ) MELINDA S. SAN NICOLAS, ) 11 ) 12 Defendant. )
14 INTRODUCTION
15 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on the 1st day of June, 2012,
16 for hearing on Defendant's Motion to Amend Judgment. Attorney Benjamin Hueber 17 represented the Plaintiff, and Defendant appeared pro se. The Court now issues the following 18 Decision and Order on the matter presented. 19
20 DISCUSSION
21 At the outset, the Court notes that the Defendant's motion is a "Motion to Amend"
22 requesting reconsideration of the Court's Decision and Order on the issue of permanent child 23 support issued on March 6,2012. 24 With a single citation to Rule 52(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant 25
26 has filed a "Motion to Amend." Pursuant to Rule 52(a), a court may hold trial in an action and
27 thereupon "find the facts specially, and state separately its conclusions of law thereon, ... " 28 Guam R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2012). Under Rule 52(b), a party may challenge these findings of fact Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0292-06; San Nicolas v. San Nicolas
and conclusions of law made after trial; "[o]n a party's motion filed no later than 10 days after
2 entry of judgment, the court may amend its findings--or make additional findings-and may
3 amend the judgment accordingly." Guam R. Civ. P. 52(b)(2012). In this case, the Defendant 4 seeks to challenge the correctness of the Court's decision and order issued after a motion 5 hearing. The Court did not hold trial, and did not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law 6 on the issue of permanent child support. Accordingly, Defendant's reliance on Rule 52(b) is 7
8 misplaced.
9 Pursuant to Rule 59(e) a party may file a motion to alter or amend a judgment, and 10 pursuant to Rule 60(b) a party may request the court for relief from either a judgment or order. 11 There are important distinctions between the two types of motions. Rule 59(e) is applicable 12
only to final judgments, while Rule 60(b) may grant relief from both judgments and orders. 13
14 More importantly, the two motions are judged by differing standards and produce different
15 results. Van Skiver v. U.S., 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (lOth Cir.1991); also compare Ward v. Reyes, 16 1998 Guam 1, with Merchant v. Nanyo Realty, Inc., 1998 Guam 26. 17 As Defendant has failed to designate which rule is applicable to this particular "Motion 18
19 to Amend," the Court must first ascertain whether Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) is determinative.
20 GRCP 59(e) provides in relevant part: "Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. A motion 21 to alter or amend judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment." 22 Guam R. Civ. P. Rule 59(e)(2012). Rule 59(e) grants a court the discretion to relieve a party 23 from judgment when the court is presented with new evidence, the decision is manifestly unjust 24
25 or is incorrect, or there is an intervening change in controlling law, provided that the party
26 moves for relief not more than ten days after a judgment was entered. Ward v. Reyes, 1998 27
Page 2 of7 Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0292-06; San Nicolas v. San Nicolas
Guam 1 ~ 2 (citing School Dist. No. 11, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
2 1263 (9th Cir.1993) cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994)).
3 Defendant specifically requests "review and amendment of the ORDER filed in this case 4 on March 6, 2012(.)" San Nicolas v. San Nicolas, Domestic Case No. DM0292-06, Motion to 5 Amend Judgment, p. 1, line 15 (filed March 19, 20 12)(capitalization in original). The Decision 6 and Order of March 6, 2012, does not constitute a final judgment, and in fact, Defendant 7
8 characterizes this decision as an "ORDER." Id. (capitalization in original). As Defendant does
9 not seek reconsideration of a judgment, but rather, the Decision and Order issued on March 6, 10 2012, Rule 59(e) provides no grounds for the present motion. 11 Because only Rule 60(b) may be used to provide relief from an order or interlocutory 12
13 decision, that rule provides the applicable standard for the current "Motion to Amend." The
14 Court will consider the merits of the motion under the standard for Rule 60(b). Because 15 Defendant mistakenly cites to Rule 52(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant fails 16 to indicate which subsection( s) of Rule 60(b) are applicable to this case, and fails to cite to any 17 applicable standard of law. However, because Defendant argues error, it is apparent to the 18
19 Court that 60(b)(1) must be addressed.
20 Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part: 21 Mistakes, Inadvertence, Excusable Neglect, Newly Discovered Evidence, Fraud, 22 etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 23 following reasons:(I) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... (4) the judgment is void; ... (6) any other reason justifying relief from operation of the 24 judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), 25 (2), (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was taken.
26 Guam R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2012). 27
Page 3 of7 Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0292-06; San Nicolas v. San Nicolas
Rule 60(b)(1) grants a court the discretion to relieve a party from any order or
2 proceeding for reason of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, provided that the
3 party moves for relief within a reasonable time and not more than one year after the order was 4 entered. Brown v. Eastman Kodak Co., 2000 Guam 30,32 (citing Pioneer Investment Serv., 5 Inc. v. Brunswick Assoc., 507 U.S. 380, 394 (1993». In this case, Defendant's motion was 6 filed within two weeks of the issuance of the Court's March 6,2012, Decision and Order. The 7
8 Court finds that the motion is therefore timely under Rule 60(b)(1).
9 After review of the motion, the Defendant's "Motion to Amend" does not allege 10 mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; it merely revisits issues already addressed 11 and determined by this Court. When a court has considered all arguments and evidence and a 12 motion for reconsideration merely reiterates and reinforces those arguments, no relief may be 13
14 granted under Rule 60(b). Van Skiver v. U.S., 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991).
15 The Supreme Court of Guam has affirmed that the standard for Rule 60(b) motions is 16 more restrictive in cases where the merits of an issue have been adjudicated, holding that "[t]he 17 standard for setting aside a default judgment is distinct from the vacation of disputed and 18
19 litigated issues." Parkland Development, Inc. v. Anderson, 2000 Guam 8 '6. The Parkland
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
I /<[ jdu)NtJ~ o !1 T
2012 AUG 22 PM 3: 59 2 ~ URT t
3 )L n
5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6
7 THOMAS S. M. SAN NICOLAS, ) DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0292-06 ) 8 Plaintiff, ) ) DECISION AND ORDER 9 v. ) JO ) MELINDA S. SAN NICOLAS, ) 11 ) 12 Defendant. )
14 INTRODUCTION
15 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on the 1st day of June, 2012,
16 for hearing on Defendant's Motion to Amend Judgment. Attorney Benjamin Hueber 17 represented the Plaintiff, and Defendant appeared pro se. The Court now issues the following 18 Decision and Order on the matter presented. 19
20 DISCUSSION
21 At the outset, the Court notes that the Defendant's motion is a "Motion to Amend"
22 requesting reconsideration of the Court's Decision and Order on the issue of permanent child 23 support issued on March 6,2012. 24 With a single citation to Rule 52(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant 25
26 has filed a "Motion to Amend." Pursuant to Rule 52(a), a court may hold trial in an action and
27 thereupon "find the facts specially, and state separately its conclusions of law thereon, ... " 28 Guam R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2012). Under Rule 52(b), a party may challenge these findings of fact Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0292-06; San Nicolas v. San Nicolas
and conclusions of law made after trial; "[o]n a party's motion filed no later than 10 days after
2 entry of judgment, the court may amend its findings--or make additional findings-and may
3 amend the judgment accordingly." Guam R. Civ. P. 52(b)(2012). In this case, the Defendant 4 seeks to challenge the correctness of the Court's decision and order issued after a motion 5 hearing. The Court did not hold trial, and did not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law 6 on the issue of permanent child support. Accordingly, Defendant's reliance on Rule 52(b) is 7
8 misplaced.
9 Pursuant to Rule 59(e) a party may file a motion to alter or amend a judgment, and 10 pursuant to Rule 60(b) a party may request the court for relief from either a judgment or order. 11 There are important distinctions between the two types of motions. Rule 59(e) is applicable 12
only to final judgments, while Rule 60(b) may grant relief from both judgments and orders. 13
14 More importantly, the two motions are judged by differing standards and produce different
15 results. Van Skiver v. U.S., 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (lOth Cir.1991); also compare Ward v. Reyes, 16 1998 Guam 1, with Merchant v. Nanyo Realty, Inc., 1998 Guam 26. 17 As Defendant has failed to designate which rule is applicable to this particular "Motion 18
19 to Amend," the Court must first ascertain whether Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) is determinative.
20 GRCP 59(e) provides in relevant part: "Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. A motion 21 to alter or amend judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment." 22 Guam R. Civ. P. Rule 59(e)(2012). Rule 59(e) grants a court the discretion to relieve a party 23 from judgment when the court is presented with new evidence, the decision is manifestly unjust 24
25 or is incorrect, or there is an intervening change in controlling law, provided that the party
26 moves for relief not more than ten days after a judgment was entered. Ward v. Reyes, 1998 27
Page 2 of7 Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0292-06; San Nicolas v. San Nicolas
Guam 1 ~ 2 (citing School Dist. No. 11, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
2 1263 (9th Cir.1993) cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994)).
3 Defendant specifically requests "review and amendment of the ORDER filed in this case 4 on March 6, 2012(.)" San Nicolas v. San Nicolas, Domestic Case No. DM0292-06, Motion to 5 Amend Judgment, p. 1, line 15 (filed March 19, 20 12)(capitalization in original). The Decision 6 and Order of March 6, 2012, does not constitute a final judgment, and in fact, Defendant 7
8 characterizes this decision as an "ORDER." Id. (capitalization in original). As Defendant does
9 not seek reconsideration of a judgment, but rather, the Decision and Order issued on March 6, 10 2012, Rule 59(e) provides no grounds for the present motion. 11 Because only Rule 60(b) may be used to provide relief from an order or interlocutory 12
13 decision, that rule provides the applicable standard for the current "Motion to Amend." The
14 Court will consider the merits of the motion under the standard for Rule 60(b). Because 15 Defendant mistakenly cites to Rule 52(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant fails 16 to indicate which subsection( s) of Rule 60(b) are applicable to this case, and fails to cite to any 17 applicable standard of law. However, because Defendant argues error, it is apparent to the 18
19 Court that 60(b)(1) must be addressed.
20 Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part: 21 Mistakes, Inadvertence, Excusable Neglect, Newly Discovered Evidence, Fraud, 22 etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 23 following reasons:(I) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... (4) the judgment is void; ... (6) any other reason justifying relief from operation of the 24 judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), 25 (2), (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was taken.
26 Guam R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2012). 27
Page 3 of7 Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0292-06; San Nicolas v. San Nicolas
Rule 60(b)(1) grants a court the discretion to relieve a party from any order or
2 proceeding for reason of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, provided that the
3 party moves for relief within a reasonable time and not more than one year after the order was 4 entered. Brown v. Eastman Kodak Co., 2000 Guam 30,32 (citing Pioneer Investment Serv., 5 Inc. v. Brunswick Assoc., 507 U.S. 380, 394 (1993». In this case, Defendant's motion was 6 filed within two weeks of the issuance of the Court's March 6,2012, Decision and Order. The 7
8 Court finds that the motion is therefore timely under Rule 60(b)(1).
9 After review of the motion, the Defendant's "Motion to Amend" does not allege 10 mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; it merely revisits issues already addressed 11 and determined by this Court. When a court has considered all arguments and evidence and a 12 motion for reconsideration merely reiterates and reinforces those arguments, no relief may be 13
14 granted under Rule 60(b). Van Skiver v. U.S., 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991).
15 The Supreme Court of Guam has affirmed that the standard for Rule 60(b) motions is 16 more restrictive in cases where the merits of an issue have been adjudicated, holding that "[t]he 17 standard for setting aside a default judgment is distinct from the vacation of disputed and 18
19 litigated issues." Parkland Development, Inc. v. Anderson, 2000 Guam 8 '6. The Parkland
20 court specifically articulated the rule governing Rule 60(b) motions after a judgment or a 21 hearing on the merits, and the general inclination is to construe Rule 60(b) relief more rigidly in 22 cases where the merits have been adjudicated than in instances where the merits of an 23 underlying issue or argument have never been addressed. 24
25 Most important to the Court's analysis of this motion is the fact that all issues currently
26 raised by the Defendant in her "Motion to Amend" were specifically addressed by the Court in 27 its March 6, 2012, Decision and Order. 28
Page 4 of7 Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0292-06; San Nicolas v. San Nicolas
Where a court has already addressed the merits of an issue, the utilization of Rule
2 60(b)(I) to address errors fact or law made by the court is inappropriate, because the finality of
3 judgments must take precedence, and a party seeking to overturn a ruling on a matter of law 4 must appeal the decision. "Rule 60(b) was not intended as a substitute for a direct appeal from 5 an erroneous judgment. The fact that a judgment is erroneous does not constitute a ground for 6 relief under the rule." Silk v. Sandoval, 435 F.2d 1266, 1267-68 (1st Cir. 1971); accord, 7
8 Tribble v. Bruin, 279 F.2d 424, 427 (4th Cir. 1960); Swam v. United States, 327 F.2d 431, 433
9 (7th Cir. 1964) cert. denied, 379 U.S. 852 (1964); and Hartman v. Lauchli, 304 F.2d 431, 432 10 (8th Cir. 1962). 11 Even in jurisdictions allowing relief under Rule 60(b)( 1) for alleged judicial errors, the 12 conclusions or interpretations of the court after considering applicable law and arguments on the 13
14 merits of an issue do not constitute "mistake" or "error" justifying relief within the purview of
15 Rule 60(b)(1). See, e.g., United States v. 31.63 Acres of Land, 840 F.2d 760, 761-62 & n.4 16 (10th Cir.1988)(argument that ruling was based on a misapplication of the law does not provide 17 a basis for relief under Rule 60(b)); and Alvestad v. Monsanto Co., 671 F.2d 908, 913 (5th 18
19 Cir.1982)(argument that district court misinterpreted the law does not come within the ambit of
20 Rille 60(b)). Thus, where a court has carefully considered all arguments and applicable 21 authority, and merely reaches an allegedly flawed conclusion, relief may not be granted on the 22 basis of judicial mistake or error under Rule 60(b)(1). 23 The Supreme Court of Guam has adopted this line of reasoning, holding that the 24
25 assertion of issues already addressed or the advancement of arguments which were already
26 presented at the initial hearing on an underlying issue may not be presented anew in the guise of 27 a motion under Rule 60(b)(1) or 60(b)(6). Merchant v. Nanvo Realty, 1998 Guam 26 ~ 9. 28
Page 50f7 Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0292-06; San Nicolas v. San Nicolas
Through the contentions that the Court was incorrect in: 1) its calculation of monthly
2 tuition costs; 2) its application of !S!l~~:IDl-y:'~!£Dill1J~1, 2010 Guam 14; and 3) its
3 calculation of child support arrears, the Defendant merely reiterates the original issues raised at 4 previous hearings, and persists in attempts to challenge the correctness of the court's reasoning 5 as to the issue of the Court's award of child support. The Court fully determined the merits of 6 each of these issues in its March 6, 2012, Decision and Order. Defendant challenges the 7
8 holdings of the March 6, 2012, Decision and Order on the basis that she disagrees with the
9 results. 10 Such arguments are properly brought under Rule 59(e) within ten days of a judgment or 11 on direct appeal, but do not justify relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). Smith v. Evans, 12 853 F.2d 155, 159 (3rd Cir.1988)(motion that "alleges no more than legal error and merely 13
14 reiterates the arguments" is a Rule 59(e) motion); American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. 15 North American Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899, (9th Cir. 2001) (motion which simply restates 16 or reargues issue offers no basis for relief under Rule 60(b»; Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 862 17 F.2d 161, 170, (8th Cir. 1988) (where motion asserted only issues oflaw that were previously 18
19 rejected by the court, the court was not required to grant relief under 60(b) as a substitute for the
20 right to appeal); and CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Const. Co., 57 F.3d 395, 401, (4th Cir. 21 1995)(where motion for relief brought under Rule 60(b) seeks reconsideration of legal issues 22 already addressed in an earlier ruling, the motion is "not authorized by Rule 60(b)," and is 23 appropriately brought as an appeal). 24
25 To the extent that the Defendant is attempting to re-argue the merits of her previously
26 raised claims regarding child support, the Defendant is asking the Court to grant an appeal. The 27 Court will not revisit issues upon which it has already spent significant time and effort 28
Page 6 of7 Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0292-06; San Nicolas v. San Nicolas
determining. The Defendant raises no new facts or law which were overlooked by the Court in
2 making its original determination, rather, she simply disputes the Court's application of the law
3 and the resulting amount of child support awarded. As the Defendant has not stated any basis 4 for reconsideration, the Court will not now re-examine its earlier decision under the guise of 5 Rule 60(b). 6 CONCLUSION 7
8 After considering the motion, the Court finds that all issues raised in the Defendant's
9 "Motion to Amend" were fully adjudicated by the Court in its Decision and Order of March 6, 10 2012. Defendant seeks only to reargue previously determined issues of fact and law. This does 11 not merit relief under Rule 60(b)(1). If the Defendant seeks a vacation or modification of this 12 decision and order awarding child support based on a change in circumstances, she may do so 13
14 as provided under 5 GCA § 34121. Until a motion for modification is filed, no change in the
15 award may be made. 5 GCA § 34121 (2012). Based upon the foregoing, the "Motion to 16 Amend" is DENIED. 17
19 IT IS SO ORDERED this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
22 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 23
Page 70f7