PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Guam

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Guam >> 2017 >> [2017] GUSC 1

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Balajadia v Government of Guam [2017] GUSC 1 (10 April 2017)


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM


ALBERT J. BALAJADIA and WILLIAM L. GAVRAS,

Plaintiff-Appellants,


v.


GOVERNMENT OF GUAM,

Defendant-Appellee.


Supreme Court Case No.: CVA16-004
Superior Court Case No.: CV0183-15


OPINION

Filed: April 10, 2017


Cite as: 2017 Guam 1


Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on October 19, 2016
Hagåtña, Guam


Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellants:
William L. Gavras, Esq.
Law Offices of William L. Gavras
101 Salisbury St.
Dededo, GU 96929
Appearing for Defendant-Appellee:
David Highsmith, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Litigation Division
590 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 706
Tamuning, GU 96913

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice.[1]


CARBULLIDO, J.:


[1] Plaintiff-Appellants Albert J. Balajadia and William Gavras (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from a final judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Government of Guam in an action Appellants filed to determine the parties’ rights to disputed funds Balajadia recovered in a personal injury settlement. The Government argued before the trial court that it had a right of subrogation, and should collect from the funds recovered from the third-party tortfeasor, because it had earlier paid Balajadia’s medical expenses pursuant to Guam’s Worker’s Compensation statute. Gavras, Balajadia’s attorney, argued that the Government could not exercise such a right because Balajadia was not made whole by the settlement funds. Gavras also argued that, regardless of allotment between the Government and his client, he should receive a contingency fee on the entire recovery pursuant to his client agreement. On appeal, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in deciding a declaration Gavras filed before that court (the “Declaration”) was insufficient to defeat the Government’s motion for summary judgment as to both issues.
[2]


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/gu/cases/GUSC/2017/1.html