Kenneth C. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel U. LUJAN, Administrator of the Estate of Pedro Camacho Lujan, deceased, Defendant, Julita Lujan Arriola and Jovita Lujan Reyes, Defendants-Appellants. Rosita R. Smith, Intervenor-Appellee.
No. 77-1900.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Jan. 5, 1979.
588 F.2d 1304
Robert D. Wyatt (argued), Joaquin C. Arriola (argued), Agana, Guam, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the District Court of Guam.
Before CHAMBERS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and KING, District Judge.*
CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:
Julita Lujan Arriola and Jovita Lujan Reyes, the daughters and heirs of decedent Pedro C. Lujan, appeal from the judgment in favor of plaintiff Kenneth Smith,1 ordering reexecution of a lease as to two lots (Nos. 2019-B and 2019-E in Tamuning, Dededo) whiсh descended to them in fee from their father‘s estate.2 They also seek to appeal from an order denying relief from the judgment under
The judgment ordered the reexecution of the lease, based on the district court‘s findings that one had been executed by Smith (as lessee) and the decedent (as lessor) in 1960, for a term of 30 years, renewable at Smith‘s option for another 20 years, at a monthly rate of $500. In their appeal from the judgment, appellants contend that evidence was improperly admitted in violation of Guam‘s “dead man” statute,
The Guam Code of Civil Procedure is based on the California Code of Civil Procedure and Section 1880(3) is identical to
“. . . upon a claim, or demand against the estate of a deceased person, as tо any matter or fact occurring before the death of such deceased person.”
They admit, as they must, that Guam courts often rely on California law in interpreting the provisions of the Guam Code of Civil Procedure. They offer no satisfactory authority for their argument that it was improper to do so in this instance. Absent controlling Guam authority interpreting
Appellants’ claim of insufficiency of the evidence is similarly without merit. There was ample evidenсe to support the judgment, particularly in view of the traditional presumptions available to the appellee on appeal. Kenneth Smith testified that in 1963 he was asked by the attorney for the Lujan еstate to discuss arrearage in rents due from the lots in question. At that time he took his executed copy of the 1960 lease, one bearing original signatures, and met with the attorney. A copy of his executed сopy was made on the attorney‘s Thermofax machine but apparently he left his executed copy at the office and did not retrieve it. In 1968, when Smith was contemplating subletting the property, he reаlized that his copy was missing and could not locate any other copy bearing original signatures. He asked the administrator to execute a new lease and, on advice of counsel, the administratоr petitioned the Island Court (now Superior Court of Guam) for permission to do so. The petition was granted and a new lease executed for the unexpired term of the 1960 lease. As we discuss more fully below, this 1968 lеase was later held to be void, thus prompting the instant suit in district court.
Appellants admit receiving rents from Kenneth Smith for the two lots since their father died.3 The main disagreement is not as to the existence of a lеasehold agreement, but rather its terms. Kenneth Smith offered the Thermofax copy of the lease in evidence, he testified that it represented the terms agreed upon in 1960, and that it was a copy of thе original lease. The only signature visible on it, however, was that of the notary. The notary testified that it was his signature and he and the estate attorney offered other testimony that corroborated Smith‘s evidenсe in significant respects. In addition, there was expert testimony that the absence of visible signatures on the Thermofax copy might be explained by the inability of that process to reproduce certain types of ink.
The evidence was sufficient to support the conclusions that the written lease had been executed in 1960 and that the Thermofax copy was a reliable copy of that leasе and reflected its terms. Appellants’ attack on the sufficiency of the evidence is largely an attack on the credibility of witnesses and we have no reason to interfere with the trial court‘s findings on those matters. See United States v. Oregon State Medical Soc., 343 U.S. 326, 332, 72 S.Ct. 690, 96 L.Ed. 978 (1952).
In 1972, the Island Court determined that in the 1968 proceedings proper notice had not been given to appellants, who were heirs. As a result, it had been without jurisdiction and the 1968 lease was void. Appellants argue that the 1972 order operates to bar the present litigation, under the doctrine of res judicata. We are dealing here with a traditional suit in equity fоr the reexecution of a lost instrument. The issues to be determined on the merits were whether a lease was executed in 1960 and, if so, its terms, and whether the executed copies were indeed lost. The 1972 ordеr of the Island Court determined only that that court has been without jurisdiction to order the administrator to execute the 1968 lease; it did not dispose of the present issues on their merits. The doctrine of res judicata extends only to issues that have been litigated on their merits in another action (Parker v. Westover, 221 F.2d 603 (9th Cir. 1955); Boling v. United States, 231 F.2d 926 (9th Cir. 1956)) and it is therefore not applicable in this case.
Following the filing of the notice of appeal, another
We are aware of the district court‘s intent to deny relief as requested in the
The appellants also filed another post-judgment motion which the court entertained and granted as there was no objection from appellee. It was a motion for correction of clerical error in the judgment under