Smau v. Wong

Opinion

OlUGlNAL

1i ritoria! Law Library : '"' J

2

3

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5 YOPPONG SMAU, ) CIVIL CASE NO. 1139-07 6 Plaintiff, )

7 )

v. ) Decision and Order re: Defendant's Motion 8 ) for Directed Verdict SUSAN T. WONG, )

9 )

10 Defendant. )

11 ----------------------------)

12 INTRODUCTION

13 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III, on April 2, 2012, 14 during a jury trial and on Defendant's motion for a directed verdict following the close of 15 Plaintiffs case-in-chief. After hearing oral arguments, this Court took the matter under 16 advisement. Having considered the arguments, evidence, and applicable law, this Court now 17

18 issues its Decision and Order

19

FACTS

20 Plaintiffs action involves claims for actual fraud, constructive fraud, and negligent 21 misrepresentation. Plaintiffs lawsuit centers around a Deed of Gift ("Deed") signed by Plaintiff 22 on February 14, 2003, which transferred title of real property to Defendant. Plaintiff, who 23 apparently cannot read English, alleges that she did not comprehend the legal effect of the Deed 24 and that the Deed was procured by misrepresentations by Defendant regarding the substance and 25 content of the Deed. Following the close of Plaintitr s case-in-chief, Defendant moved this Court 26

for a directed verdict. Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to present any evidence that her 27

28

ORIGINAL

Decision and Order Case No. I J 39-07

claims fall within the applicable statute of limitations for fraud and also that Defendant did not

2 present any evidence that Defendant engaged in fraud against Plaintiff. 3

4 DISCUSSION 5 Rule 50 of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 6 (a) Judgment as a Matter of Law 7 (1) If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to 8 find for that party on that issue, the court may detennine the issue against 9 that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the I() controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue.

II

12 GUAM R. CIY. P. 50(a)(1); see also O'Mara v. Hechanova, 2001 Guan1 13 ~ 6 ("A motion for a

13 directed verdict ... is the same as a motion for judgment as a matter of law"). A judgment as a

14 matter of law is proper if the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the nonnlOving

15 party, pennits only one reasonable conclusion .... " O'Mara, 2001 Guam 13 ~ 6. Defendant

16 argues that Plaintiff failed to sustain her burden of proof with respect to both the statute of

17 limitations issue and the issue of Defendant's liability for fraud.

18 I. The Statute of Limitations 19 Title 7, section 11305 of the Guam code establishes a three year statute of limitations for

20 claims of fraud. 7 GUAM CODE ANN. § 11305(4). With respect to an action grounded in fraud, 21 section 11305(4) provides: "The cause of action in such case [is] not to be deemed to have 22 accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake."

23 Id. The Guam Supreme Court has held that under section 11305, "the statute of limitations will 24 begin to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that his injury was caused by 25 wrongdoing or that someone has done something wrong to him." Gayle v. Hernlani, 2000 Guam 26 25 ~ 24. Defendant argues that the statute of limitations began to run when Plaintiff signed the 27 Deed in 2003 because the Deed is a public document and Plaintiff was charged with knowing its

28 contents. However Courts have established that where a plaintiff does not know of the contents of the instrument that she is signing, the Plaintiff cannot be found to have knowledge of the facts

3

Decision and Order Case No. 1139-07

constituting the fraud. Moore v. Moore, 56 Cal. 89, 90 (1880) ("so long as [plaintiff] was

2 ignorant of the contents of the instruments which she had been induced to execute, she was 3 ignorant of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake upon which she relies for relief."); Cooke 4 v. Darnell, 100 Cal.App. 482, 280 P. 383 (Ct. App. 1929) (demurrer based on statute of 5 limitations for fraud claims was not proper where plaintiff alleged that he did not understand the

6 contents of a deed). 7 In the present case, viewing Plaintiffs evidence in a light most favorable to her, this

8 Court rules that the evidence is sufficient to create a reasonable issue of fact as to whether 9 Plaintiff knew or should have known about the alleged fraud more than three years prior to the 10 commencement of the present action. Based on the evidence presented, a juror could find that II Defendant does not have a grasp of the English language and did not comprehend the substance 12 of the Deed that she signed in 2003. Plaintiff testified that her daughter had never lied to her and 13 thus a juror could infer from the evidence that Plaintiff simply signed whatever document 14 Defendant had placed in front of her. Moreover, based on Mr. Peterson's testimony regarding 15 Plaintiffs emotional reaction to hearing news about the transfer of ownership of her home, a jury

16 could infer that Plaintiff did not comprehend the import of her act of signing the Deed some 17 years earlier. Viewing the evidence in Plaintiffs favor, this court cannot rule as a matter of law 18 that Plaintiff knew or should have known of the alleged acts more than three years before the

19 filing of this action. 20

21 II. Evidence of Fraud 22 Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to sustain her

23 burden of proof regarding the substantive allegations of fraud. The elements of fraud are: "(1) a 24 misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity (or scienter); (3) intent to defraud to induce reliance;

25 (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damages." Transpacific Export Co. v. Oka Towers 26 Corp., 2000 Guam 3 ~ 23. The elements of negligent misrepresentation are .. ( 1) a

27 misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact; (2) without reasonable grounds for believing 28 it to be true; (3) with intent to induce another's reliance on the fact misrepresented; (4) ignorance

4

Decision and Order Case No. 1139-07

of the truth and justifiable reliance thereon by the party to whom the misrepresentation was 2 directed, and (5) damages." Hemlani v. Flaherty 2003 Guam 17 ~ 9 (quoting Fox v. Pollack, 226 3 Cal. Rptr. 532, 537 (Ct. App. 1986)). Thus, under Guam law, in order to prove fraud or 4 negligent misrepresentation, the Plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the 5 Defendant, in some way, made a misrepresentation to the Plaintiff that was relied on to the 6 Plaintiff's detriment and that the Defendant had intent to induce reliance. 7 In the present case, there was simply no testimony of any misrepresentation or intent to 8 induce reliance by Defendant. Plaintiff testified that she signed the document, but she could not 9 provide any probative testimony regarding the transaction - she simply couldn't remember any 10 details about the signing of the deed. Plaintiff's failing memory regarding her execution of the II Deed simply does not amount to sufficient proof that Defendant made a misrepresentation about 12 the instrument or that Defendant acted with any intent to defraud. In addition, Mr. Peterson, the 13 only other witness to testify, could not offer any probative evidence as to the transaction or 14 misrepresentation by Defendant. The only evidence of fraud pointed to by Plaintiff in her 15 opposition of the motion was some alleged concealment by Defendant as evidenced by Mr. 16 Peterson's testimony that Defendant did not mention her ownership of the home to either Mr. 17 Peterson or his wife. But this is simply not a sufficient showing of misrepresentation at the time 18 of the signing of the Deed or of any intent to defraud by Defendant. 19 The evidence is far too fragile to support a verdict for Plaintiff. A verdict in favor of 20 Plaintiff on the element of misrepresentation would be based solely on the tenuous inference that 21 because Plaintiff does not have any current comprehension of the substance of the Deed, she 22 must not have had any comprehension of the Deed at the time she signed it; and therefore, 23 Defendant must have somehow misrepresented the substance of the document to Plaintiff. Such a 24 verdict would necessarily either rest on mere guesses by the jury as to what happened at the time 25 of the signing of the Deed, or on multiple levels of inference drawn from the tenuous evidence 26 supplied by Plaintiff. This Court finds that Plaintiff has not proven by a preponderance of the 27 evidence crucial elements of fraud - either constructive or actual - or negligent 28 misrepresentation. Therefore, Judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendant is appropriate.

5

Decision and Order Case No. J 139-07 ORIGINAL

CONCLUSION

2 Based on the foregoing, Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law is 3 GRANTED as to the regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiff's evidence. The case is hereby

4 DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to enter Judgment pursuant to Guam Rule of

5 Civil Procedure 58 (1 )-(2). 6

7 It is SO ORDERED this 8

9 APR 0 if 2012 LAMORENA, III of Guam

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORIG1NAL