Fargo Pacific Inc v Korando Corporation [2006] GUSC 18; 2006 Guam 22 (29 December 2006)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

FARGO PACIFIC, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

vs.

KORANDO CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA05-004
Superior Court Case No.: CV0766-01

OPINION

Filed: December 29, 2006

Cite as: 2006 Guam 22

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on March 6, 2006
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee: Thomas M. Tarpley, Jr., Esq. Tarpley & Moroni, LLP Ste. 402, Bank of Hawaii Bldg. 134 W. Soledad Ave. Hagatna, GU 96910

Appearing for the Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant: Joyce C.H. Tang, Esq. Civille & Tang, PLLC Ste. 200 330 Hernan Cortez Ave. Hagatna, GU 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, JR., Associate Justice.

TORRES, J.:

[1] This is a cross-appeal between Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Fargo Pacific, Incorporated ("Fargo"), a prime contractor, and Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Korando Corporation ("Korando", a subcontractor. Fargo sued Korando for additional costs incurred in fixing defective work performed by Korando pursuant to a subcontract. Korando counterclaimed for work done purportedly outside the original scope of the subcontract. After a bench trial, the Superior Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, holding that Korando breached its subcontract with Fargo. The court also determined that because the scope of the project was changed after the breach, Fargo’s damages were limited to "the contract amount of $39,000.00 and $16,000.00 which is the difference in the contract amount and and [sic] the cost to rectify Defendant’s work at $60,000.00." Furthermore, each party was to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs. A judgment in favor of Fargo was subsequently entered without review or approval as to form by Korando, in the amount of $44,400.00 together with costs. Fargo appealed and Korando cross-appealed.

[2] On appeal, we must determine whether the trial court’s verdict is supported by substantial evidence, whether attorney’s fees are recoverable under the indemnity provision of the subcontract, and whether the trial court erred in signing the proposed judgment submitted by Fargo without allowing Korando the opportunity to review the judgment.

[3]