Castino v GC Corporation [2010] GUSC 3; 2010 Guam 03 (5 March 2010)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Supreme Court of Guam

HEIDI CASTINO dba UNI-ARC, S.K. CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
HUA SHENG INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LTD.,
YEONG SUN KIM dba SUN ELECTRICAL SERVICES,
JONG UL HONG dba UL H. CONSTRUCTION,
PAN DOL PARK dba P.D. CONSTRUCTION and
HAWAIIAN ROCK PRODUCTS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and
G.C. CORPORATION, Defendant-Counterclaimant/Appellant,

Supreme Court Case No. CVA09-009
(Consolidated with CVA09-010, CVA09-011, and CVA09-012)

Superior Court Case No. CV0091-08, CV0015-08, CV1474-07, CV1491-07 and CV0137-08

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and Submitted on October 9, 2009
Hagåtña, Guam

Submitted on Briefs for Plaintiff-Appellant:

Appearing for the Defendant-Appellee:

Heidi Castino dba Uni-Arc
Thomas M. Tarpley, Jr., Esq.
Thomas McKee Tarpley, P.C.
Suite 904 GCIC Bldg.
414 W Soledad Ave.,
Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for the Plaintiffs-Appellants:
S.K. Construction, Inc., Hua Sheng International Group Ltd., Yeong Sun Kim dba Sun Electrical Services, Jong Ul Hong dba Ul H. Construction, Pan Dol Park dba P.D. Construction
Thomas C. Sterling, Esq.
Blair Sterling Johnson Martinez & Leon Guerrero, P.C.
Suite 1008 DNA Bldg.
238 Archbishop F.C. Flores St.
Hagåtña, GU 96910

Hawaiian Rock Products
Mitchell F. Thompson, Esq.
Maher & Thompson, P.C.
140 Aspinall Ave., Suite 201
Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for the Defendant-Counterclaimant/Appellant:
G.C. Corporation
Joyce C.H. Tang, Esq.
Civille & Tang, PLLC
330 Hernan Cortez Ave., Suite 200
Hagåtña, GU 96910

Guam Resorts, Inc.
James L. Canto II, Esq.
Shimizu Canto & Fisher
Suite 101 De La Corte Bldg.
167 E Marine Corps Dr.
Hagåtña, GU 96910

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

[1] Several mechanics’ lien claims that stemmed from the Guam Okura Hotel construction project were recorded and subsequent foreclosure actions were filed. All cases relating to this construction project were consolidated at the trial court level and were consolidated again on appeal. Plaintiffs-Appellants and Defendant-Counterclaimant/Appellant appeal from the trial court’s sua sponte dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over all foreclosure causes of action because each party’s lien claim failed to meet the requirements of 7 GCA § 33301(a) or 7 GCA § 33302(i), or both, thus rendering the lien claims invalid. The trial court held that the invalid lien claims removed the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, which allowed the trial court to dismiss the cases sua sponte.

[2] We REVERSE and find that the mechanics’ lien claims met the formation requirements for giving preliminary notice of a lien claim and recording a valid lien claim under 7 GCA §§ 33301(a) and 33302(i).

[3] G.C. Corporation ("GC") signed a construction agreement with Guam Resorts, Inc. ("GRI") to be the prime contractor on the Guam Okura Hotel Project ("Project"). GRI owns the Project, located at the Hotel Okura in Tumon, Guam. Thereafter, GC subcontracted with Plaintiff-Appellants S.K. Construction, Inc., Hua Sheng International Group Ltd., Yeong Sun Kim dba Sun Electrical Services, Jong Ul Hong dba Ul H. Construction and Pan Dol Park dba P.D. Construction, (collectively, "S.K. Group"), as well as Heidi Castino dba Uni-Arc ("Uni-Arc") and Hawaiian Rock Products ("HRP"), to provide labor or materials or both for the Project. The following subsections explain each party’s factual and procedural background.

[4] GC and GRI signed a construction agreement where GC performed labor and furnished materials that were used in the renovation and improvement of GRI’s property. GRI stopped paying GC, the project was delayed, and GRI denied GC access to certain portions of the Project site. GC suspended work on the Project and notified GRI that GC would not work unless GC was paid what was due under their construction agreement and the delay issues were resolved. GRI then notified GC’s counsel by letter that GRI had terminated the construction agreement. That same day, GC delivered a pre-lien notice to GRI. Just over two weeks later, GC filed and recorded its lien claim with the Department of Land Management.

[5] Subsequently, GRI filed a Complaint for Quiet Title against GC, seeking to invalidate GC’s lien claim. GC answered and counterclaimed seeking foreclosure of its lien claim. GRI then filed a Reply to GC’s Counterclaim.

[6] Uni-Arc served a pre-lien notice to GRI and GC, and subsequently recorded a lien claim. Uni-Arc then filed a complaint for foreclosure of its mechanics’ lien claim.[1]

[7] The members of the S.K. Group each served pre-lien notices to GRI and GC and subsequently recorded mechanics’ liens to secure the amounts owed to them for working as subcontractors on the Project. The S.K. Group also filed a complaint to foreclose on the lien claims.

[8] HRP sent a preliminary notice of lien to GRI and GC and thereafter recorded a mechanics’ lien.

Supreme Court of Guam

Castino v GC Corporation [2010] GUSC 3; 2010 Guam 03 (5 March 2010)