Agana Beach Condominium Homeowners Association v Untalan [2015] GUSC 35 (18 November 2015)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

AGANA BEACH CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION and GERALD PEREZ,
Petitioners-Appellants,

v.

CARLOS R. UNTALAN, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF GUAM,
Respondent-Appellee,

and

PORTIA SEELY, PRISCILLA SHERFY, JEANINE WIMETT, FLORENCE HAIR, ANTHONY H. INOCENTES as trustees of the ESTATE OF MARGARITA H. INOCENTES,
Real Parties in Interest.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA14-030
Superior Court Case No.: SP0112-11

OPINION

Filed: November 18, 2015

Cite as: 2015 Guam 35

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on May 18, 2015
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Petitioner-Appellant: James M. Maher, Esq. Law Office of James M. Maher 238 Archbishop Flores St., Ste. 300 Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Respondent-Appellee: David J. Highsmith, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Litigation Division 590 S. Marine Corps Dr. Tamuning, GU 96913

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

CARBULLIDO, J.:

[1] This case is on its second appeal after remand to the trial court pursuant to this court's opinion in Agana Beach Condominium Homeowners' Association v. Mafnas, 2013 Guam 9. Petitioners-Appellants Agana Beach Condominium Homeowners' Association and Gerald Perez (collectively referred to as "the Homeowners") appeal the trial court's denial of their petition for writ of mandate. At the trial court, the Homeowners argued that the Director of the Department of Land Management ("the Director") wrongfully approved a lessee's request for a split-zone change. On appeal, the Homeowners argue that the trial court erred in denying their petition for writ of mandate because the plain language of 21 GCA § 61214 does not allow a lessee to perform a split-zone election. For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court's decision and remand for the trial court to issue the writ of mandate.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2]