Moylan v Moylan [2011] GUSC 14; 2011 Guam 16 (18 October 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIPS OF
FRANCIS LESTER MOYLAN AND YUK LAN MOYLAN,
Wards.

RICHARD E. MOYLAN,
Petitioner-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

KURT MOYLAN, LEIALOHA MOYLAN ALSTON,
and FRANCIS LESTER MOYLAN, JR.,
Petitioners-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA08-016
Superior Court Case No.: SP0110-07
(Consolidated with SP0104-07, SP0105-07, SP0106-07, SP0107-07 & SP0111-07)

OPINION

Filed: October 18, 2011

Cite as: 2011 Guam 16

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on March 11, 2011
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Appellant/Cross-Appellee: Douglas B. Moylan, Esq. Law Offices of Douglas B. Moylan P.O. Box 7822 Tamuning, GU 96931

Appearing for Appellees/Cross-Appellants: G. Patrick Civille, Esq. Civille & Tang, PLLC 330 Hernan Cortes Ave., Ste. 200 Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, Associate Justice; RICHARD H. BENSON, Justice Pro Tempore.

TORRES, J.:

[1] The Petitioner-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Richard E. Moylan (“Richard”), and Petitioners-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Kurt Moylan (“Kurt”), Leialoha Moylan Alston (“Princess”), and Francis Lester Moylan, Jr. (“JR”) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Majority Siblings”), are the children of Mrs. Yuk Lan Moylan (“Mrs. Moylan”) and Mr. Francis Lester Moylan (“Mr. Moylan”)[1] (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Wards”). The children filed competing petitions for appointment as guardians of the person or of the estate of the Wards or both. The trial court consolidated the guardianship cases and after extensive hearings, appointed Princess general guardian over the person of Mr. Moylan and “limited guardian” over the person of Mrs. Moylan. Kurt was appointed general guardian of the estate of Mr. Moylan and “limited guardian” of the estate of Mrs. Moylan. In addition to the guardianship appointments, the court made several decisions regarding the Wards’ assets. Furthermore, the court ordered the continued sealing of all financial records, evidence, and reports of the Wards.

[2] Richard appeals the guardianship appointments and the trial court’s determination that there was an enforceable transfer of real property to Princess and a completed gift of $200,000.00 to JR. He also appeals the trial court’s failure to require reimbursement of the Wards’ estates of the interest earned during the time that certain Time Certificates of Deposit (“TCDs”) were only in the names of JR and Princess and in sealing the financial records, evidence and reports of the Wards. On cross-appeal, the Majority Siblings claim that the trial court erred in finding that F.L. Moylan Company, a corporation substantially owned by the Wards, owed the Wards $1,983,772.75 for shareholder loans and that the use of the TCDs for F.L. Moylan Company was not in the best interest of the Wards. They also argue that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a constructive trust on the TCDs that were transferred to JR and Princess.

[3] For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand several issues back to the trial court.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[4] This appeal arises out of a set of highly contested guardianship cases from the Superior Court of Guam. The trial court proceedings involved the guardianship of both the persons and the estates of Mr. Moylan and his wife, Mrs. Moylan. Over the years, Mr. and Mrs. Moylan amassed a sizeable estate as a result of multiple business ventures. Sometime in 2007, both Mr. and Mrs. Moylan were diagnosed with varying stages of Alzheimer’s disease that limited their ability to care for themselves and to manage their own business affairs.

[5] As the Wards’ physical and mental condition worsened, their children could not reach a consensus on how best to care for their parents and manage their estates. Three of the four siblings — Kurt, JR, and Princess — were able to agree upon a management plan regarding the estate of their parents. Richard, however, did not agree with the recommendations of his other siblings. Accordingly, the Majority Siblings and Richard both petitioned the Superior Court of Guam for guardianship. Kurt filed separate petitions for the appointment of guardianship over the estates of Mr. Moylan and Mrs. Moylan while Princess and JR petitioned the court for appointment as guardian over the persons of Mr. Moylan and Mrs. Moylan. Richard thereafter filed competing petitions for general guardianship over the person and estate of both Mr. Moylan and Mrs. Moylan. Richard also filed separate objections to the appointment of Kurt as guardian over the estates of Mr. Moylan and Mrs. Moylan, claiming that Kurt was unsuitable for both roles. Additionally, Richard filed an objection to Princess and JR being appointed as guardians over the persons of Mr. Moylan and Mrs. Moylan. The trial court conducted a bifurcated hearing in which it first made a determination as to the competency of Mr. and Mrs. Moylan, and then addressed the issue of who should be appointed guardian.

[6] The trial court later appointed Kurt and Richard as temporary co-guardians over the estates of both Mr. and Mrs. Moylan. The court also appointed Kurt as temporary guardian of the persons of both Mr. and Mrs. Moylan. In its order of appointment, the court temporarily waived the cash bond and surety for the guardians, pending the appointment of permanent guardians. Kurt, Princess, and JR timely appealed, and we subsequently vacated and remanded the trial court order because the determination of the necessity of whether bonds were required of the co-guardians was a prerequisite to issuing letters of guardianship. In re Guardianships of Moylan, CVA08-003 (Order at 8 (June 24, 2008)). In response, the trial court issued a decision requiring each petitioner to post a surety bond of $1.7 million, which Kurt posted but Richard conceded he was unable to provide.

[7]