2023 Guam 6
Guam2023Background
- In 1978 Calvo’s Insurance registered Lot 10113-R2 (later subdivided into Lots 10113-3 and 10113-R3); Glenn Nelson claims portions of that land as Estate 49/2959.
- Theodore Nelson (Glenn’s father) unsuccessfully sought to reopen the Espinosa probate (PR0193-48); the Superior Court found Bayview and Hanil/Blue Ocean were bona fide purchasers.
- In a later quiet-title suit (CV0779-08), Theodore disclaimed any interest in Lot 10113-3 and the court quieted title to Lot 10113-R3 in favor of Blue Ocean’s predecessor; no appeals were taken.
- Glenn filed a Petition for Registration of Title (Sept. 18, 2019); Objectors (Bayview IV, LLC and Blue Ocean Development, LLC) objected and moved for summary judgment.
- Objectors argued the petition violated 21 GCA § 60509 (attached map older than one year) and was barred by res judicata based on prior probate and quiet-title judgments; the Superior Court granted summary judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Guam affirmed: Glenn’s petition failed the statutory map requirement and his claim was precluded by res judicata (he is in privity with Theodore and the prior judgments were final on the merits).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction — appealability of order vs final judgment | Nelson intended to appeal the final judgment; his appeal of the Decision & Order should stand | Objectors: Nelson appealed only the interlocutory order, not the separate final judgment | Court found Nelson's intent sufficient and exercised discretion to treat the appeal as from the final judgment; jurisdiction exists |
| Statutory compliance with 21 GCA § 60509 (map age) | Nelson: DLM inconsistently enforces the one-year map rule; prior practice should excuse him | Objectors: Petition fails statutory one-year map requirement (submitted 2014 map) | Petition did not comply with § 60509; this alone supports affirmance |
| Res judicata — claim preclusion (final judgment element) | Nelson: No final judgment on the specific issue he raises now | Objectors: Prior probate and quiet-title rulings disposed of the estate’s claims and are final and unappealed | Prior judgments were final and on the merits; element satisfied |
| Res judicata — identity of claim and privity | Nelson: No privity with Theodore; the present claim differs (Estate 2959 vs Estate 49); new evidence supports relitigation | Objectors: Claims arise from same transactional nucleus; Theodore represented the Espinosa Estate and Nelson stands in privity | Claims arise from same transactional nucleus; Glenn is in privity with Theodore; res judicata bars Nelson’s claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bankers Tr. Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (1978) (separate-document rule should not be applied to trap litigants; interpret rules to secure just, speedy, inexpensive determination)
- Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001) (use transactional nucleus of facts test to determine identity of claims for claim preclusion)
- Gospel Missions of Am. v. Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 548 (9th Cir. 2003) (framework for identifying redundant claims)
- Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1992) (analysis relevant to claim identity and preclusion inquiries)
- L-Tec Elecs. Corp. v. Cougar Elec. Org., Inc., 198 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 1999) (res judicata applies to claims based on newly discovered evidence unless evidence was fraudulently concealed or undiscoverable with due diligence)
- Saud v. Bank of N.Y., 929 F.2d 916 (2d Cir. 1991) (same principle regarding newly discovered evidence and preclusion)