Town House Department Stores Inc v Ahn II [2003] GUSC 6; 2003 Guam 06 (7 March 2003)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

TOWN HOUSE DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HI SUP AHN,
Defendant-Appellant

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA01-018
Superior Court Case No.: CV0098-97

OPINION

Filed: March 7, 2003

Cite as: 2003 Guam 6

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on June 19, 2002
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: James M. Maher, Esq. Maher & Thompson 140 Aspinall Ave., Suite 201 Hagåtña, Guam 96910

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Hi Sup Ahn, Pro Se A3, 21 W. Buena Vista Ave. Dededo, GU 96912 P. O. Box 20968, G.M.F. Barrigada, GU 96921

BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR., Chief Justice[1]; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice.

CARBULLIDO, J.:

[1] This case arises out of a contract between the Plaintiff-Appellee Town House Department Stores, Inc. (ATown House@) and Defendant-Appellant Hi Sup Ahn (AAhn@) wherein Ahn executed a personal guarantee in favor of Town House as additional security for a contract for the sale of furniture. Upon default in payment under the sales contract, and pursuant to its rights as a secured creditor, Town House repossessed and sold the furniture, which served as collateral for the sale. Town House thereafter sued Ahn for the deficiency pursuant to its rights under the personal guarantee contract. The lower court granted Town House=s requested relief, and Ahn appealed the deficiency judgment on the ground that the lower court erroneously failed to make a finding on whether the sale price of the collateral was fair and reasonable. In an Amended Opinion filed on October 10, 2000, cited as Town House Department Stores, Inc. v. Ahn, 2000 Guam 29, (ATown House I@), this court reversed the trial court=s deficiency judgment and remanded for a finding on the issue of whether the sale price of the furniture was fair and reasonable.

[2] On remand, the lower court found that the sale price was Afair and reasonable,@ and entered judgment in favor of Town House. Ahn filed a motion for amended and additional findings of fact and conclusions of law. Ahn also pursued a previously filed motion to set aside the judgment. The trial court denied both motions. Ahn filed the instant appeal, arguing that: (1) the trial court erroneously failed to make a finding on whether the sale price was fair and reasonable; (2) the trial court erred by rendering a written decision and order on remand without conducting further proceedings; and (3) the trial court erred in denying Ahn=s post-trial motions. We reject each of Ahn=s arguments and therefore affirm the lower court=s judgment.

I.

[3] On December 9, 1994, T&K Development Corporation (AT&K@