San Union, Inc. dba Harmon Garden Apartments v Arnold [2017] GUSC 10 (14 August 2017)

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

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on March 3, 2017
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant:
Richard T. Arnold, pro se
P.O. Box 4891
Hagåtña, Guam 96932

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee:
Joyce C.H. Tang, Esq.
Leslie Travis, Esq.
Civille & Tang, PLLC
330 Hernan Cortez Ave., Ste. 200
Hagåtña, Guam 96910

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

TORRES, J.:
[1] Defendant-Appellant Richard Arnold appeals from a Superior Court judgment in favor of his former landlord and employer, Plaintiff-Appellee San Union, Inc. (“San Union”), awarding San Union possession of a rental unit along with attorney’s fees and costs of suit after a summary proceeding for unlawful detainer.
[2] Arnold argues on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the action for a defective statement of jurisdiction, refusing to recuse itself for a conflict of interest, failing to address the lawfulness of Arnold’s discharge from employment, and not recognizing an equitable defense to unlawful detainer for retaliatory eviction. Arnold further contends that the court improperly awarded attorney’s fees. For the reasons herein, we affirm the Superior Court judgment.

[3] Arnold worked for several years as a maintenance person for San Union, which owns Harmon Garden Apartments. Ellen Wilkinson is the president of San Union. From June 6, 2014, until June 5, 2015, Arnold rented a unit in Harmon Garden Apartments pursuant to a discounted one-year lease. No new lease was signed thereafter, though Arnold continued living in the apartment and paying rent.
[4] On March 9, 2016, Arnold was injured and subsequently procured a doctor’s note. Two days later, San Union delivered a document terminating Arnold’s employment and giving him 30-days’ notice to vacate the unit he occupied. This same notice informed Arnold that his rent for the portion of the following month before quitting the premises would be a prorated share of $800, rather than his discounted rate of $475.
[5] Arnold failed to vacate the premises within 30 days. A few days later, San Union filed a complaint for unlawful detainer, which was later amended. Arnold filed an answer and purported counterclaims.
[6] The same day that Arnold filed his answer and counterclaims, the parties appeared briefly before the trial court, during which time the following exchange occurred:
THE COURT: Good morning.

Ms. Wilkinson, previous realtor . . . realtor for the home I live in now, about 10 years ago. Right? She helped me find that home; we’re very happy in that home. Notwithstanding Ms. Wilkinson, we don’t necessarily have anything beyond that, no other business dealings; let me make that disclosure now.

Transcript (“Tr.”) at 2-3 (Hr’g, Apr. 29, 2016) (ellipsis in original).
[7] The parties again appeared before the trial court for the unlawful detainer hearing. During this proceeding, Arnold was represented by counsel. Arnold’s counsel attempted to argue that Arnold’s firing was retaliation for the possible filing of a worker’s compensation claim and that the rent increase was unlawful. See Tr. at 19 (Unlawful Detainer Hr’g, May 10, 2016). He argued that such evidence was relevant because the court had the ability to deny San Union relief on equitable grounds. Id. at 51. The court limited introduction of evidence regarding Arnold’s injury and subsequent report while allowing evidence regarding the increase in rent. See id. at 37, 55-56.
[8] At the end of the proceeding, the court and parties reached an understanding regarding the status of arguments that Arnold had raised as counterclaims before acquiring counsel and without the understanding that the proceeding for unlawful detainer was a summary one.

THE COURT: . . . I do understand how Mr. Arnold has responded in some fashion. Let me just make for the record, the cross-complaints, I’m not saying they’re without merit, I would say that this is not the venue for those to be completed. This is just about, really, tenancy . . . .

THE COURT: I’m not dismissing them. I’m just saying that you can take them at another venue. You may file those at a different time. You are not precluded, as a result of your filing them in your answer, from taking some other action at another venue, or through another filing.

[SAN UNION’S COUNSEL]: Your Honor, to clarify, we don’t have to respond to that filing and the context --

[ARNOLD’S COUNSEL]: There are no counterclaims allowed in a -- I acknowledge that there are no counterclaims allowed in a summary proceeding --

[ARNOLD’S COUNSEL]: -- unlawful detainer, and so the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over them --

[ARNOLD’S COUNSEL]: -- so because the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over them, it has -- this ruling has no effect on them. They’re --

Supreme Court of Guam

San Union, Inc. dba Harmon Garden Apartments v Arnold [2017] GUSC 10 (14 August 2017)