Guam News - Guam News

Guam - The Supreme Court of Guam, in an opinion authored by Associate Justice Robert J. Torres and joined by Chief Justice F. Philip Carbullido and Associate Justice Katherine A. Maraman, reversed and remanded the judgment of the Superior Court of Guam in the case of Burkhart v. Miranda, 2013 Guam 2.

The case stems from a dispute between family members over the title to the house located in Piti. Jesusa L. Miranda, original owner of the property, executed a general power of attorney giving her son, Raymond I. Miranda, Jr., power to conduct transactions on her behalf.

READ the Guam Supreme Court Decision in Burkhart v. Miranda HERE

The parties disagree whether Raymond was authorized to sell the property to his brother, Roland, in 1991. Jesusa stated that she allowed Roland to live there, but she did not agree to a sale. Roland lived on the property for 17 years, making improvements and acting as the owner. In 2007, Jesusa executed a gift deed to her daughter, Rosalinda Burkhart. Shortly thereafter, Rosalinda filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Guam for ejectment, past rent, quiet title, and damages. The trial court denied both of Rosalinda’s motions for summary judgment and granted Roland’s motion for summary judgment on the basis the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Rosalinda appealed.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the trial court’s ruling. The court held that the trial court committed reversible error when it granted summary judgment to Roland and Rita dismissing Rosalinda’s complaint and when it reformed the deed in their favor. Specifically, the court held that the deed is void for failure to comply with 21 GCA § 4105. The court also stated that Raymond, as attorney in fact, was required to indicate Jesusa’s name on the deed and his own name as attorney in fact, but did not do so. Although the deed is clearly void, the court held that the trial court must still determine whether an agreement existed to transfer the property. Finally, the court stated the effective date for the running of any statute of limitation period should be the date of this opinion.

< Prev		Next >