Guam – The Guam Supreme Court has “affirmed in part, reversed in part” the trial court’s decision in Guam Resorts v. G.C. Corporation. And they have remanded the case back to the trial court for a Jury trial.
Although the High Court agreed with the trial court that “intent to defraud” is not required in order for a claimant to forfeit a lien under Guam’s mechanic’s lien law, they overturned the lower court’s decision because “the issue of whether GC acted willfully is a question of fact to be decided by the jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for a jury trial on the issue of willfulness.”
READ the Guam Supreme Court’s decision HERE
The trial court had terminated G.C.’s mechanic’s lien after finding that the company had willfully included charges and materials not performed or provided during a construction project for Guam Resorts.
READ the release from the Judiciary of Guam in FULL below:
Guam Resorts, Inc. v. G.C. Corporation, 2012 Guam 13. The opinion, authored by Justice Robert J. Torres and joined by Chief Justice F. Philip Carbullido and Justice Katherine A. Maraman, affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Superior Court of Guam in the underlying case involving a mechanic’s lien for work done at the Aurora Resort in Tumon.
The contractor, G.C. Corporation (“GC”), appealed from a decision of the trial court invalidating GC’s mechanic’s lien and granting summary judgment for the owner of the property, Guam Resorts, Inc. (“GRI”). The trial court determined that GC forfeited its mechanic’s lien claim by willfully including amounts for work and materials not performed upon or not furnished for the construction project, in violation of Guam’s mechanic’s lien law.
The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that “intent to defraud” is not required in order for a claimant to forfeit the lien under Guam’s mechanic’s lien law. Instead the claimant may forfeit the lien if it willfully includes in the claim of lien work not performed or materials not furnished for the property described in the claim. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision forfeiting GC’s lien and granting GRI’s motion for summary judgment, because the issue of whether GC acted willfully is a question of fact to be decided by the jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for a jury trial on the issue of willfulness.
