PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Guam

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Guam >> 1997 >> [1997] GUSC 11

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Kim v Sa Yong Hong [1997] GUSC 11; 1997 Guam 11 (17 October 1997)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

ANDDY P. KIM,
Appellee,

vs.

EDWARD SA YONG HONG,
Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No. CVA97-007
Superior Court Case No. CV1031-94
Filed: October 17, 1997

Cite as: 1997 Guam 11

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and Submitted 20 August 1997
Agana, Guam


Appearing for the Appellant
WILLIAM C. BISCHOFF
Attorney At Law
134 Chalan Santo Papa, Ste. 202
Agana, Guam 96910

Appearing for the Appellee
MARISSA KIM
Horecky & Associates
Suite 403, Bank of Hawaii Bldg.
134 West Soledad Avenue
Agana, Guam 96910

__________________________________

OPINION


BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice, JANET HEALY WEEKS, and JOSE LEON GUERRERO, Associate Justices.

WEEKS, J.:

[1] This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee Kim resulting in an award to Kim of $29,437.00, plus interest and costs. The Superior Court found that the signature of Appellant Hong on a written document promising to pay Kim $29,437.00, coupled with Hong=s signature on a check payable to Kim for that amount, was sufficient to eliminate any triable issue of fact as to Hong=s liability to Kim for the amount of the check. We reverse.

BACKGROUND


[2] On 13 March 1993, Appellant Hong signed a hand written document which stated that he had borrowed $29,437.00 from Appellee Kim, and that he promised to pay that amount back to Kim on 31 August 1993. Also on 13 March 1993, Hong signed a check payable to Kim in the amount of $29,437.00. The check was post-dated to 31 August 1993. Because of insufficient funds in Hong=s bank account, Kim was unable to receive payment on the check.

[3] According to Kim, the hand written document and the check are negotiable instruments given to Kim by Hong in satisfaction of a series of loans Kim had previously made to Hong. Hong, on the other hand, claims that he never actually borrowed money from Kim. According to Hong, Kim had Ainvested@ funds in a AKorean Money Club@ run by Hong=s wife, and had lost his A


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/gu/cases/GUSC/1997/11.html