Concepcion v Siguenza [2003] GUSC 11; 2003 Guam 12 (19 June 2003)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF
EVELYN IWALANI CONCEPCION,
ELIZABETH CONCEPCION and DELFINA BORJA,
Respondents-Appellants,

vs.

ANTONIO SIGUENZA,
Petitioner-Appellee.

Supreme Court Case No. CVA02-017
Superior Court Case No. PR0054-89

OPINION

Filed: June 19, 2003

Cite as: 2003 Guam 12

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on April 15, 2003
Hagåtña, Guam

Attorney for Appellants: Wilson Quinley, Esq. Law Offices of Wilson Quinley Suite 500 I, GCIC Bldg. Hagåtña, Guam 96910

Attorney for Appellee: Peter C. Perez, Esq. Lujan, Aguigui, & Perez, LLP Suite 300, Pacific News Bldg. 238 Archbishop Flores St. Hagåtña, Guam 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice; JANET HEALY WEEKS, Justice Pro Tempore.

WEEKS, J.:

[1] In this appeal from a probate court=s decree of final distribution, the Administrator, Elizabeth Concepcion (AConcepcion@), and heir, Delfina Borja (ABorja@), challenge the distribution of 8/9ths of the estate to Co-administrator Antonio Siguenza (ASiguenza@). Concepcion and Borja argue that Siguenza should not have been granted letters of administration, and that Siguenza was not entitled to the estate property. We affirm the probate court=s decree of final distribution.

I.

[2] Evelyn Iwalani Concepcion (ADecedent@) died intestate in 1987. The underlying probate case was filed in 1989 by the First Hawaiian Bank (ABank@), which held a mortgage in decedent=s real property.[1] On February 27, 1989, the Bank filed a Petition for Appointment of Special Administrator which named decedent=s nine children, Leroy, Elizabeth, Delfina, Enrique, Cindyann, Evelina, Susan, Lawrence and Norman as heirs, and identified a single house and real property lot (AProperty@), which is the subject of this probate case. The Petition also requested that the probate court appoint Susan as special administrator. On March 3, 1989, the probate court appointed Susan as special administrator.

[3] In 1991, Siguenza obtained ownership interests in the property by way of quitclaim deeds from several of the heirs. On March 11, 1996, Siguenza petitioned the probate court for letters of administration. On April 29, 1996, the probate court appointed Siguenza and one of the originally named heirs, Elizabeth, as co-administrators. In 1997 and 1998, Siguenza received two more quitclaim deeds for a total of 8/9ths interest in the Property.

[4] In January 2000, Siguenza petitioned the probate court for final distribution. In March 2000, Siguenza=s petition came for hearing before the probate court. At this hearing, the heirs objected and requested more time to retain counsel. The probate court granted the request and continued the matter. On June 8, 2000, the parties appeared before the probate court and a scheduling order was issued as follows: (1) August 1, 2000 - deadline to file motions; (2) September 8, 2000 - deadline to file oppositions to motions; (3) September 22, 2000 - trial date. On June 20, 2000, the probate court issued a written order memorializing the scheduling order.

[5] On July 5, 2000, in conformance with the scheduling order, Siguenza filed a motion for summary judgment and served all heirs with requests for admissions. On September 1, 2000, one month after the motion cutoff date, Concepcion and Borja filed three motions: (1) a motion to revoke letters of administration and for surcharge; (2) a motion to return real property by quitclaim; and (3) an ex parte motion to continue trial and to shorten time to hear motions. On that date, the probate court considered the ex parte motion and ordered that Siguenza=s summary judgment motion and Concepcion and Borja=s motions would be heard on September 8, 2000. On September 8, 2000, the motions were heard. On June 12, 2001, the probate court issued a decision and order denying Siguenza=s summary judgment motion. That decision and order also denied Concepcion and Borja=s motions to revoke letters and set aside quitclaim deeds as untimely and in violation of the scheduling order.

[6] On November 7, 2001, Siguenza filed a Re-notice Rendering Account for Final Settlement and Petition for Distribution. On November 27, 2001, Concepcion and Borja filed an objection. On November 28, 2001, in a hearing before the probate court on Siguenza=s petition for final distribution, the probate court noted that the objection filed on November 21 failed to include details and gave Concepcion and Borja until November 30, 2001 to file a detailed objection. Concepcion and Borja failed to file a detailed objection.

[7] On January 14, 2002, a bench trial was held and Concepcion failed to appear. On February 8, 2002, Wilson Quinley, attorney for Concepcion and Borja, filed a motion for extraordinary attorney=s fees and for statutory fees of co-administrator. This motion was heard on April 3, 2002. On April 8, 2002, the probate court filed a Decree Settling Final Account of Administrator and Final Distribution finding that Siguenza was entitled to 8/9ths of the Property because: (1) Concepcion and Borja failed to file a detailed objection as ordered by the court on November 28, 2001; (2) Concepcion and Borja failed to respond to Siguenza=s Request for Admissions; and (3) Co-administrator Elizabeth did not appear at the trial and failed her burden of proof. The decree also awarded statutory attorney=s fees to both parties=