Hemlani v Hemlani [2015] GUSC 16 (29 April 2015)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

REKHA HEMLANI,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KISHORE HEMLANI,
Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA14-018
Superior Court Case No.: CV1980-10

OPINION

Filed: April 29, 2015

Cite as: 2015 Guam 16

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on October 31, 2014
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Thomas M. Tarpley, Jr., Esq. Thomas McKee Tarpley, P.C. GCIC Bldg. 414 W Soledad Ave., Ste. 904 Hagåtña, GU 96910

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

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

TORRES, C.J.:

[1] This case centers on a promissory note signed by Defendant-Appellant Kishore Hemlani ("Kishore") in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Rekha Hemlani ("Rekha") and Moti Hemlani.[1] Kishore appeals the three separate decision and orders (1) denying his cross-motion for summary judgment, (2) granting Rekha's motion for reconsideration and entering summary judgment in her favor, and (3) denying his motion for relief from the amended judgment and to stay enforcement thereof. Kishore claims that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Rekha by failing to consider evidence which created a dispute of material fact and by improperly concluding that Rekha's declaration sufficiently satisfied her prima facie burden for recovery. Kishore further argues that the court impermissibly refused to allow withdrawal of admissions attributed to him for failure to timely respond to Rekha's requests for admissions. Finally, Kishore asserts that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to resolve the parties' dispute, as their agreement was void due to Rekha's failure to possess a required business license at any time prior to bringing this suit, including the time the note was executed. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2]