Moylan v Moylan [2018] GUSC 15 (1 October 2018)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF
YUK LAN MOYLAN,

Ward.

RICHARD E. MOYLAN,
Appellant,

v.

KURT MOYLAN, LEIALOHA MOYLAN ALSTON,
and FRANCIS LESTER MOYLAN, JR.,
Appellees.

OPINION

Filed: October 1, 2018

Cite as: 2018 Guam 15

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA17-006
Superior Court Case No.: SP0106-07
(Consolidated with SP0104-07, SP0105-07, SP0107-07, SP0110-07, & SP0111-07)

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on October 12, 2017
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Appellant: Douglas B. Moylan, Esq. Law Offices of Douglas B. Moylan 138 W. Seaton Blvd., Ste. 201 Hagåtña, GU 96910 Gary Wayne Francis Gumataotao, Esq. San Ramon Bldg. 115 San Ramon St., Ste. 301 Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Appellees: Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, Esq. Law Office of Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, P.C. 284 W. Chalan Santo Papa Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Presiding Justice^[1]; ROBERT J. TORRES, Associate Justice; JOHN A. MANGLONA, Justice Pro Tempore.

TORRES, J.:

[1] Richard E. Moylan appeals the Superior Court’s denial of his motions for visitation and to compel the disclosure of financial information. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] This appeal arises out of extensive litigation surrounding the guardianship and estate of Francis L. Moylan, now deceased, and Yuk Lan Moylan. We incorporate the factual and procedural history described in our prior opinions. See generally In re Guardianship of Yuk Lan Moylan, 2018 Guam 8 (“Moylan III”); In re Guardianship of Yuk Lan Moylan, 2017 Guam 28 (“Moylan II”); In re Guardianships of Francis Lester Moylan & Yuk Lan Moylan, 2011 Guam 16 (“Moylan I”).
[3] For present purposes, we briefly note that in 2011, we upheld the appointment of Leialoha Alston as the limited guardian of the person of Yuk Lan Moylan. Moylan I, 2011 Guam 16 ¶¶ 1, 22-25, 71. Richard has attempted to arrange visits with his mother, Yuk Lan, through Leialoha’s counsel. When this failed, Richard filed Motions for Visitation and to Compel the disclosure of additional financial information related to the estate and the guardians. At the scheduled hearing on the motion, counsel for the guardians did not appear due to illness. Instead of continuing the matter, the Superior Court took it under advisement.
[4] The Superior Court subsequently issued a decision denying both of Richard’s motions. In its denial, the court reasoned that it was in the best interest of Yuk Lan to allow Leialoha, as the limited guardian of the person, to determine the location and conditions of visitation. Additionally, the court held that Richard was not entitled to additional financial documentation, beyond the reports he was already entitled to pursuant to our holding in Moylan I, 2011 Guam 16 ¶¶ 46-55. Richard filed a timely appeal. The parties subsequently engaged in court-ordered mediation, but they were unable to resolve the issues now before us.

II. JURISDICTION

[5] This court has jurisdiction over appeals arising from final orders of the Superior Court. 48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 115-223 (2018)); 7 GCA §§ 3107, 3108(a) (2005); see also Guam R. Civ. P. 54(a).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[6] Ripeness is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, and “[w]hether a court possesses subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewable de novo.” Blake v. Cty. of Kaua’i Planning Comm’n, 315 P.3d 749, 757 (Haw. 2013) (as amended Jan. 8, 2014) (quoting Kapuwai v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, Dep’t of Parks & Recreation, 211 P.3d 750, 756 (Haw. 2009)). We “review ‘the trial court’s actions on remand for an abuse of discretion.’” Moylan II, 2017 Guam 28 ¶ 13 (quoting Town House Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Ahn, 2003 Guam 6 ¶ 17); see also Lanser v. Lanser, 2003 Guam 14 ¶ 15; People v. Cruz, No. CR92-00097A, 1994 WL 550110, at *1 (D. Guam App. Div. Oct. 4, 1994), aff’d, 70 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 1995). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s “decision is based on clearly erroneous factual findings or an incorrect legal standard.” M Elec. Corp. v. Phil-Gets (Guam) Int’l Trading Corp., 2016 Guam 35 ¶ 41 (quoting Agana Beach Condo. Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Untalan, 2015 Guam 35 ¶ 12) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous where it is not supported by substantial evidence, and this court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. (quoting Ptack v. Ptack, 2015 Guam 5 ¶ 24).

IV. ANALYSIS

A. The Superior Court’s Denial of Richard’s Motion to Compel is Sufficiently Ripe for Review
[7] The guardians contend that Richard’s appeal is not ripe. See Appellees’ Br. at 13-15 (Aug. 16, 2017). Ripeness is a prudential doctrine which seeks to “prevent[] courts from entangling themselves in ‘abstract disagreements.’” People v. Gay, 2007 Guam 11 ¶ 8 (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 (1967), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977)). In determining whether a case is sufficiently ripe for review, a court will consider: (1) whether the issues are fit for judicial consideration and (2) the hardship to the parties if consideration is withheld. Id. (quoting Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 149); see also Kang v. Kang, 2014 Guam 25