Paulino v. Biscoe

9 Citing cases

  1. First Hawaiian Bank v. Manley

    2007 Guam 2 (Guam 2007)   Cited 9 times

    Additionally, in Paulino v. Biscoe, we said "[a]t first glance, [Section 24101] mandates that any action for the foreclosure of mortgages must be brought before the Superior Court; however, this would be inconsistent with the statutory empowerment of the power of sale" allowed in 18 GCA § 36113. Paulino v. Biscoe, 2000 Guam 13 P 20 n. 8. "In the absence of a statute to the contrary, a creditor secured by a . . . mortgage . . . may recover the full amount of the debt upon default [and] may realize the security or sue on the obligation or both."

  2. Sky Enter. v. Kobayashi

    2003 Guam LEXIS 28 (Guam 2003)   Cited 2 times

    As we have previously held, "it is not this court's function to legislate those protections by implication." Paulino v. Biscoe, 2000 Guam 13, P28, 2000 Guam LEXIS 44 (referring to the absence in Guam law of certain protections extended to mortgagors in California and declining to grant those protections not provided for by statute "unless and until the Guam Legislature sees fit to provide [them]"); see also Bank of Guam v. Reidy, 2001 Guam 14, P22, 2001 Guam LEXIS 16 ("Judicial legislation … is clearly not the prerogative of the courts."); People v. Villapando, 1999 Guam 31, 1999 Guam 31, P 54, 1999 Guam LEXIS 27 ("It is within the purview of the Legislature to make statutory changes to an ill-conceived statutory scheme.

  3. Hemlani v. Melwani

    2016 Guam 33 (Guam 2016)

    We review the trial court's granting of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Zahnen v. Limtiaco, 2008 Guam 5 ¶ 8 (citing Paulino v. Biscoe, 2000 Guam 13 ¶ 12). When deciding on a motion for summary judgment, the court must draw inferences and view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Bank of Guam v. Flores, 2004 Guam 25 ¶ 7 (citing Edwards v. Pac. Fin. Corp., 2000 Guam 27 ¶ 7).

  4. Ramos v. Docomo Pac., Inc

    2012 WL 6738152 (Guam 2012)   Cited 7 times

    We give great deference to the Guam Legislature. As we have previously held, "it is not this court's function to legislate those protections by implication." Sky Enter. v. Kobayashi, 2003 Guam 5 ¶ 11 (quoting Paulino v. Biscoe, 2000 Guam 13 ¶ 28); see also Bank of Guam v. Reidy, 2001 Guam 14 ¶ 22 ("[J]udicial legislation . . . is clearly not the prerogative of the courts."); People v. Villapando, 1999 Guam 31 ¶ 54 ("[I]t is within the purview of the Legislature to make statutory changes to an ill-conceived statutory scheme.

  5. Zahnen v. Limtiaco

    2008 Guam 5 (Guam 2008)   Cited 19 times

    Takagi & Assocs., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Underwriters, 2006 Guam 4 P 10. Similarly, a de novo standard applies to review of a grant of summary judgment. Paulino v. Biscoe, 2000 Guam 13 P 12. Findings of fact, on the other hand, are reviewed in a highly deferential manner and will only be set aside if clearly erroneous. In re Application of Leon Guerrero, 2005 Guam 1 P 15. "[T]he appropriate standard of review of a determination of whether laches applies in a particular case is abuse of discretion."

  6. Taitano v. Lujan

    2005 WL 3579088 (Guam 2005)   Cited 32 times
    In Taitano, we held that "a fee simple title is presumed to be intended to pass by a grant of real property, unless it appears from the grant that a lesser estate was intended" and that "[a]s long as the word 'grant' is used in the instrument of conveyance, then fee simple title is presumed."

    This court has jurisdiction over this appeal from a final judgment pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 109-20 (2005)), and Title 7 GCA §§ 3107(b) and 3108(b) (2005). A trial court's decision granting a motion for summary judgment in a quiet title action is reviewed de novo. Paulino v. Biscoe, 2000 Guam 13 P12. In rendering a decision on a motion for summary judgment, the court must draw the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Bank of Guam v. Flores, 2004 Guam 25 P 7; Taijeron v. Kim, 1999 Guam 16 P 8 .

  7. Gov't of Guam v. 221 Slot Machs

    2002 WL 31656134 (Guam 2002)   Cited 1 times

    " Pangelinan v. Gutierrez, 2000 Guam 11, P7, aff'd by Gutierrez v. Pangelinan, 276 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2002) . "In all cases involving statutory construction, the starting point must be the language of the statue itself." Paulino v. Biscoe, 2000 Guam 13, P26. Thus, we must examine the language of the statutes that regulate slot machines. Chapter 64 of Title 9 Guam Code Annotated regulates gambling on Guam. Gambling is prohibited on Guam except as otherwise provided by law.

  8. Bank of Guam v. Del Priore

    2001 Guam 10 (Guam 2001)   Cited 3 times
    In Bank of Guam v. Del Priore, 2001 Guam 10, this court determined that the failure to plead and prove the notice requirement of 13 GCA § 9504(3) prevented BOG from obtaining a deficiency judgment.

    See Maryland Nat'l Bank, 414 A.2d at 1263. Significantly, unlike in the case of foreclosure of a real property mortgage where the debtor may have a twelve-month statutory right to redeem the property after a foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to a private power of sale, see Paulino v. Biscoe, 2000 Guam 13, P22, in the case of foreclosing on a security interest, the debtor's right of redemption may only be exercised prior to the foreclosure sale. See 13 GCA § 9506.

  9. Pelowski v. Taitano

    2000 WL 1886579 (Guam 2001)   Cited 11 times
    Stating that in order to avail oneself of the protections of Guam's recording statute, one must either be an initial registrant or a bona fide purchaser

    We review a trial court's grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. See Paulino v. Biscoe, 2000 Guam 13, P12; Iizuka Corp. v. Kawasho Int'l, 1997 Guam 10, P 7. Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Guam R. Civ. P. 56(c) (1995).