Mariano v Surla [2010] GUSC 2; 2010 Guam 02 (26 February 2010)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA08-018
Superior Court Case No.: CV0923-06

MARK B.S. MARIANO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

V

REY M. SURLA,
Defendant-Appellant

OPINION

Filed: February 26, 2010
Cite as: 2010 Guam 2

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on May 15, 2009
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: Jon A. Visosky, Esq. Dooley Roberts & Fowler LLP Ste. 201, Orlean Pacific Plaza 865 S Marine Corps Dr. Tamuning, GU 96913

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Daniel J. Berman, Esq. Berman O’Connor & Mann Ste. 503, Bank of Guam Bldg. 111 Chalan Santo Papa Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice

MARAMAN, J.:

[1] Defendant-Appellant, Rey M. Surla, appeals from the Superior Court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside a default judgment. Surla alleges the default judgment was void under Rule 60(b)(4) since Plaintiff-Appellee, Mark B.S. Mariano, failed to comply with Guam law in serving the summons and complaint and the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over him. Surla also sought relief from the default judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) as an extraordinary circumstance. For the reasons below, we find that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the default judgment under Rules 60(b)(4) and (6). However, we conclude that entry of the default judgment should have only established Surla’s liability and not the amount of damages. Consequently, the default judgment is affirmed as to the determination of liability. Further, we vacate the damages award and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the record as to damages.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKBROUND