Viall v. Viall

Opinion

3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

4 KEITH D. VIALL, DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0806-07 5

6 Plaintiff,

7 V. DECISION AND ORDER

8 CYNTHIA SUE VIALL, 9 Defendant. 10

II

12 This matter came before the court upon Plaintiff's motion to amend the court's findings

13 of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(b ), and further moves the court for a stay 14 pursuant to Rule 62(b). The Court, for the reasons herein, denies both motions. 15

16 The court notes that Defendant filed on August 19, 2013 leave to file "her tardy

17 Opposition hereto." The court having considered the reasons set forth in the motion grants 18 leave and accepts the opposition for its further consideration. 19

20 The plaintiff moves to amend the courts findings and conclusions of law pursuant to 21 Rule 52(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff moves to amend the courts findings 22 asserting that the court incorrectly calculated gross income. In Town House v. Ahn, II 2003 23

24 Guam 6, the Supreme Court set forth the factors that should guide this court's consideration of

25 this motion. These factors include: 26 1. Manifest error of law or fact; 27 2. Newly discovered evidence; and 28 3. An intervening change in the law. Decision and Order Keith D. Viall vs. C'ynthia Sue Viall, Domestic Case No. DM0806-07

The Supreme Court further confirms that Rule 52(b) is not intended to merely re-litigate

2 the matters already addressed by the court. The Court, having reviewed and applied these

3 factors to the facts of this case, finds that the Plaintiff is simply in disagreement with the court 4 as to how it arrived at its finding of Plaintiffs income. Plaintiff does not contend that the court's 5 calculations were not supported by the evidence determined by the court to exist and credible. 6 The motion for reconsideration raises no substantially new evidence or arguments of law. The 7

8 matters raised in the motion were all before the court at the time of its consideration and the

9 court finds no good basis to grant the current motion. 10

11 Plaintiff further moves this court for a stay pursuant to Rule 62(b ). The court declines to

12 revisit this matter at this time and notes that a hearing on this and related issues are currently 13 scheduled for October 4, 2013, and denies the motion at this time. 14

15 CONCLUSION

16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES the plaintiffs Motion to Amend 17

18 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Motion to Stay Enforcement of Interlocutory

19 Decree. 20

23 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 24

Page 2 of2