The Supreme Court of Guam issued an opinion in *Cho v. Alupang Beach Club, Inc.* (2025 Guam 3), resolving an appeal in a property dispute that has been ongoing since 2017. The case involves Hee K. Cho and Min S. Cho as plaintiffs-appellants against Alupang Beach Club, Inc. and Steven Kasperbauer as defendants-appellees.
The dispute centers on the interpretation of a 2004 Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, which was intended to resolve various claims about the Alupang Beach Tower. The Chos appealed the trial court's decision granting the defendants' second motion for summary judgment, as well as the denial of their motion to reconsider that decision.
According to the Supreme Court opinion written by Associate Justice F. Philip Carbullido, the Chos argued that the trial court failed to address all of their claims when it granted summary judgment in favor of Alupang Beach Club. The plaintiffs contended that the trial court improperly disposed of the case without fully considering their legal arguments.
Additionally, the Chos challenged the trial court's denial of their motion for reconsideration. The trial court had found that the Chos abandoned their claims by failing to properly assert them in opposition to the defendants' second motion for summary judgment. The Chos disputed this characterization, arguing that they had not abandoned their claims.
The case originated in the Superior Court of Guam under case number CV1059-17 in 2017. After the trial court's rulings in favor of the defendants, the Chos appealed to the Supreme Court of Guam, where the case was assigned number CVA24-003. Oral arguments were heard on Aug. 23, 2024, in Hagåtña, Guam.
The legal representation in the case included Daniel J. Berman of Berman Law Firm representing the plaintiffs-appellants, while R. Todd Thompson of Thompson Thompson & Alcantara, P.C. represented the defendants-appellees.
The Supreme Court panel that heard the case consisted of Chief Justice Robert J. Torres, Associate Justice F. Philip Carbullido, and Associate Justice Katherine A. Maraman. Justice Carbullido authored the court's opinion.
Property disputes involving settlement agreements often raise complex questions about contract interpretation and the scope of releases. Settlement agreements are intended to provide finality to legal disputes, but disagreements can arise about what claims were actually resolved by such agreements.
In this case, the 2004 Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release was designed to resolve various claims related to the Alupang Beach Tower. However, the parties apparently disagreed about the scope and effect of that settlement, leading to the current litigation that began in 2017.
The procedural history of the case involves multiple motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court granted the defendants' second motion for summary judgment, suggesting that either the facts were undisputed or that the law clearly favored the defendants' position.
The Chos' argument that the trial court failed to address all of their claims raises important procedural questions about the scope of summary judgment rulings. Courts must address all claims presented by the parties, and a failure to do so can constitute reversible error.
The trial court's finding that the Chos abandoned their claims by failing to assert them in opposition to the summary judgment motion highlights the importance of proper legal briefing. Parties must clearly present their arguments to the court, and a failure to do so can result in waiver or abandonment of claims.
The Supreme Court of Guam's review of this case provides important guidance on property dispute resolution and the interpretation of settlement agreements in the territory. The court's analysis of whether claims were properly preserved and whether the trial court addressed all issues will likely influence future litigation involving similar disputes.
Property disputes involving commercial developments like the Alupang Beach Tower can have significant implications for both the parties involved and the broader community. These cases often involve substantial financial interests and can affect property rights, development plans, and business operations.
The resolution of this appeal will determine whether the 2004 settlement agreement effectively resolved all claims between the parties or whether additional litigation may be necessary. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the settlement agreement and the procedural issues raised by the Chos will provide important precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.
This case demonstrates the complexity of property disputes and the importance of carefully drafted settlement agreements. It also highlights the procedural requirements that parties must follow when challenging summary judgment rulings and the consequences of failing to properly preserve legal arguments for appeal.