Zahnen v Limtiaco [2008] GUSC 5; 2008 Guam 05 (11 March 2008)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

ROBERT M. ZAHNEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THOMAS I. LIMTIACO,
Defendant-Appellee.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA07-004
Superior Court Case No.: CV0631-03

OPINION

Filed: March 11, 2008
Cite as: 2008 Guam 5

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on October 16, 2007
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant: David J. Highsmith, Esq. Suite 309, Union Bank Bldg. 194 Hernan Cortes Ave. Hagåtña, Guam 96910

Appearing for Defendant-Appellee: Leslie A. Travis, Esq. Phillips & Bordallo, P.C. 410 W. O’Brien Dr., Suite 102 Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice;[1] ROBERT J. TORRES, JR., Associate Justice;[2] RICHARD H. BENSON, Justice Pro Tempore.

CARBULLIDO, C.J.:

[1] Plaintiff-Appellant Robert M. Zahnen (“Zahnen”) appeals from a final judgment quieting title to a disputed parcel of land in favor of Defendant-Appellee Thomas I. Limtiaco (“Limtiaco”). Zahnen argues that because Limtiaco brought a creditor’s claim against his parents’ estate in a prior probate proceeding, and because Limtiaco’s deceased wife was a respondent in that proceeding, the final decree of distribution awarding the disputed property to Zahnen and his sister is now res judicata with respect to Limtiaco’s claim. Alternatively, Zahnen argues that because Limtiaco failed to record his deeds or otherwise assert his claim to title since at least 1982, he is barred by laches from now claiming title to the land. Because the probate court had no jurisdiction to quiet title to the property, and because laches does not apply, we reject Zahnen’s arguments and affirm the Superior Court’s award of the disputed property to Limtiaco.

I.

[2] This case involves a dispute over title to a section of Lot No. 7011-2-B-1 (“Lot 1”) in Yigo, Guam. Lot 1 was first registered on September 5, 1958 under the Land Title Registration Law. See 21 GCA ch. 29 (2005). On June 20, 1966 Hugh H. Fawcett sold Lot 1 to John P. Zahnen (“Mr. Zahnen”) and Magdalena Zahnen (“Mrs. Zahnen”). Mr. and Mrs. Zahnen (“the Zahnens”) subsequently registered their deed with the Department of Land Management and received a certificate of title on March 20, 1969.

[3] Defendant-Appellee Thomas I. Limtiaco (“Limtiaco”) and his wife Fidela F. Limtiaco (“Mrs. Limtiaco”) owned a parcel of land adjacent to Lot 1. On June 15, 1974, the Zahnens granted a small portion of Lot 1 (“the disputed property”) to Limtiaco and his wife (“the Limtiacos”) through a warranty deed. The Zahnens then signed a deed of conveyance transferring the same disputed property to the Limtiacos on February 5, 1982. According to the lower court’s findings of fact, the Limtiacos paid the Zahnens $2,500 for the disputed property and another $200 for gas and $500 for costs associated with recording the deeds. The court also found that Mr. Zahnen promised to record the deeds, but never did. At some point the Limtiacos built an extension to their house that occupied a portion of the disputed property.

[4] Mr. Zahnen died on June 8, 1996, and his wife, Mrs. Zahnen, died shortly after on February 21, 1997. A joint probate case was filed on March 7, 1997, and Lot 1 was included in the inventory of assets in both estates. Mrs. Limtiaco joined a group of eighteen respondents who opposed the petition for letters of administration and final distribution. She died in 1999, while the estate was still open in probate. At some point, Limtiaco filed a claim against the estate for approximately $6,000 in funeral expenses, which was paid in the final distribution. The existence of the 1982 deed conveying the disputed property to the Limtiacos was disclosed several times in the probate proceedings. Nevertheless, on September 5, 2002 the probate court distributed Lot 1 to Plaintiff-Appellant Zahnen and his sister Mary Ann Iriarte, the surviving children of Mr. Zahnen. According to the lower court’s subsequent finding of facts, “[t]he proper ownership of the disputed portion of Lot [1] was not decided and litigated in the probate court.” Appellant’s Excerpts of Record (“ER”), Ex. D, pp. 4-5 (Findings of Fact & Concl. of L., Oct. 24, 2006). On December 9, 2003, Zahnen and his sister registered their administrator’s deed with the Department of Land Management.

[5] On May 6, 2003, Zahnen filed a suit in an attempt to quiet title to Lot 1. On March 3, 2004, Zahnen filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that Limtiaco’s claim to title in the disputed property is barred by res judicata (claim preclusion) and the doctrine of laches. The motion was denied on September 6, 2005 with respect to the issue of res judicata, and the case eventually proceeded to a bench trial on the issues of the authenticity of the deeds and the application of laches. At the conclusion of trial, the lower court found that title to the disputed property had been properly conveyed to the Limtiacos by the 1974 and 1982 deeds. The court also determined that the deeds were valid against Zahnen and his sister because they had notice of the deeds and inherited title to Lot 1 rather than paying valuable consideration for it. Finally, the lower court rejected the defense of laches.

[6] Judgment was entered against Zahnen on February 15, 2007. On March 13, 2007, Zahnen filed a timely Notice of Appeal.

II.

[7] This court has jurisdiction over this appeal from a final judgment pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 110-185 (excluding Pub. L. 110-181) (2008)) and 7 GCA §§ 3107, 3108(a), 25101, 25102(a) (2005).

[8] “The conclusions of law made by a court following a bench trial are reviewed de novo.” Takagi & Assocs., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Underwriters, 2006 Guam 4 ¶ 10. Similarly, a de novo standard applies to review of a grant of summary judgment. Paulino v. Biscoe, 2000 Guam 13 ¶ 12. Findings of fact, on the other hand, are reviewed in a highly deferential manner and will only be set aside if clearly erroneous. In re Application of Leon Guerrero, 2005 Guam 1