{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f112\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502050305020303}Goudy Old Style;}{\f169\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols;}{\f185\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f186\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f188\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f189\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f190\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f191\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f192\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f193\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;
\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid6238670
\rsid9129531\rsid9508377\rsid15938066}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min1}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy20\hr16\min33}{\version3}{\edmins2}{\nofpages7}{\nofwords1670}{\nofchars9520}
{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws11168}{\vern16391}}\margl2160\margr2160\margt2606\margb2606 
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3
\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot6238670 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6238670 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6238670 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6238670 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6238670 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery2606\footery2606\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid6238670\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\scaps\f112\fs18\insrsid6238670 
Archbishop vs. G.F.G./1997 Guam 12/Opinion}{\f112\fs22\insrsid6238670 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\f112\fs22\insrsid6238670 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\b\insrsid15938066\charrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 ARCHBISHOP OF GUAM,
\par ANTHONY SABLAN APURON,
\par OFM, CAP D.D.,}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par Appellee,}{\insrsid6238670 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid15938066\charrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 vs.}{\insrsid6238670 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid15938066\charrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 G.F.G. CORPORATION,}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par Appellant.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Supreme Court Case No. CVA96-016
\par Superior Court Case No. CV1083-96
\par Filed: October 17, 1997
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Cite as: 1997 Guam 12
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Submitted on 12 August 1997
\par Agana, Guam
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Counsel for Appellant}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par STEVEN A. ZAMSKY
\par Zamsky Law Firm
\par Suite 501, Bank of Guam Building
\par 111 Chalan Santo Papa
\par Agana, Guam 96910}{\insrsid6238670 
\par }{\insrsid15938066\charrsid15938066 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Counsel for the Appellee}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par JOHN C. DIERKING
\par Attorney at Law
\par 140 Route 8
\par Agana, Guam 96910
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 _______________}{\insrsid6238670 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid15938066\charrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 OPINION
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par BEFORE:}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice, JANET HEALY WEEKS, and JOSE LEON GUERRERO, Associate Justices.
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 WEEKS, J.:
\par }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qj \fi432\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 This is an ap
peal from a judgment in an unlawful detainer action restoring possession of certain real property to Appellee Archbishop of Guam and awarding the Archbishop rental payments due for a period of one year.}{\insrsid15938066  }{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 The tenant, Appellant G.F.G. Corporation, contends that the Archbishop}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 s notice of default failed to comply with Guam}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
s unlawful detainer statute, 21 G.C.A. }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  21103.}{\insrsid15938066  }{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 We agree with Appellant and reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qj \li432\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin432\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 BACKGROUND}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid15938066\charrsid15938066 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [1]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab Appellee Archbishop of Guam (}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Archbishop}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 ) leased property to Appellant G.F.G. Corporation (}{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 G.F.G.}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 ) for a period of 99 years.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 The rent was set at $15,000 per month increasing 10% after the first five years 
and every five years thereafter.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 G.F.G.}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
s failure to pay rent led to a series of three unlawful detainer actions, the instant action being the most recent.
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [2]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab The first unlawful detainer action (}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Unlawful Detainer I}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
) was filed on 7 September 1994 and was based on a notice of default that Appellee sent to G.F.G. on 16}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 February 1994 demanding performance under the lease or surrender of the property.}{
\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Following a trial, the Superior Court entered judgment awarding possession of the property to the Archbishop as well as unpaid rent up to the date of judgment.}{\insrsid15938066  }{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 The Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam reversed the}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
judgment because the Archbishop did not have a business license and did not substantially comply with the business licensing statute.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Archbishop of Guam v. G.F.G. Corp.}{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 , No. CR-95-00007A 1995 WL 604383, at *3 (D.Guam App. Div. Oct. 2, 1995).}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 The opinion from the Appellate Division included the following statement in a footnote: }{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
We do not reach whether post-October 1994 circumstances support further proceedings against G.F.G. and this decision is not intended to prejudice future pursuit of any appropriate claims.}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15938066  }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Id.}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [3]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab The second unlawful detainer action (}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Unlawful Detainer II}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
) was filed on 8 April 1996 and was based on a notice of default sent to G.F.G. on 2 February 1996.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
The notice demanded rental payments covering a period of sixteen months, from October 1994 to January 1996, and also demanded interest and attorneys}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  fees.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 On the same day }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Unlawful Detainer II}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
 was filed, Appellee sent another notice of default to G.F.G. demanding, in addition to attorneys}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
 fees and interest, rent again covering a period of sixteen months, this time from January 1995 to April 1996.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
This third default notice was entitled Alternate Written Notice of Default to Lessee and included the following language:}{\insrsid6238670 
\par }{\insrsid15938066\charrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qj \fi432\li432\ri432\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin432\lin432\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 This notice is an }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Alternate Notice}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
 given on the contingency that the Superior Court of Guam may rule that the }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
Written Notice of Default to Lessee}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
 given by the Lessor to the Lessee on January 31, 1996 is defective by reason of inclusion therein of rental accruing from October 6, 1994 through December 31, 1994.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
This alternative notice shall not be deemed as an admission that rental for the months of October, November and December, 1994 is res-judicata, nor shall it be deemed as a waiver of claim for the said rental.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [4]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab G.F.G. did not appear in court to defend the action in }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Unlawful Detainer II}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 .}{\insrsid15938066  }{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 The Superior Court issued a default judgment which led to a 6 May 1996 judgment restoring possession to the Archbishop and awarding rent from October 1994 to April 1996.}{\insrsid15938066  }{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 G.F.G. appealed the judgment in }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Unlawful Detainer II}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  to the Appellate Division which resulted in another reversal.}{\insrsid15938066  }{
\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Archbishop of Guam v. G.F.G. Corp.}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 , No. CIV 96-00048A 1997 WL 208978, at *1(D.Guam App. Div. Apr. 21, 1997). The Appellate Division held that Appellee}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 s notice of default was invalid because it demanded more than one year}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 s rent and was therefore not in compliance with 21 G.C.A. }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  21103, Guam}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 s unlawful detainer
 statute.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Id.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [5]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab On 18 July 1996, prior to the Appellate Division}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 s reversal in }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Unlawful Detainer II}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 , Appellee filed a third unlawful detainer action (}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Unlawful Detainer III}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 ) in the Superior Court.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 This third action, the subject of the instant appeal, was based on the 8 April 1996 Alternative Notice of Default described above.}{
\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 The complaint in }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Unlawful Detainer III}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  included the following clause: }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 This action is brought on the contingency that defendant prevails in its appeal from the Judgment in Civil Case No. CV0464-96, Superior Court of Guam [}{
\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Unlawful Detainer II}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 ], such appeal now pending in the District Court under D.C.C.V. 96-00048A.}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [6]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab G.F.G. filed a summary judgment motion on 13 August 1996 challenging the 8 April 1996 Alternative Notice of Default primarily on the 
basis that the notice demanded rent for a period in excess of one year.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
The Superior Court denied the summary judgment motion and on 4 October 1996 filed findings of fact and conclusions of law awarding Appellee twelve months of rent as well as interest and attorneys}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  fees.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 A separate judgment to this effect was filed on 30 January 1997.}{\insrsid15938066  }{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 This appeal followed.
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 DISCUSSION}{\b\insrsid6238670 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid15938066\charrsid15938066 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [7]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab Appellant G.F.G. presents three argument on appeal.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 First, G.F.G. argues that the Al
ternative Notice of Default which formed the basis of this unlawful detainer action was not in compliance with Guam}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 s unlawful detainer statute because it demanded rent in excess of 12 months.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Second, G.F.G.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 ar
gues that the judgment in this case, }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Unlawful Detainer III}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 , is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the lower court judgment in }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
Unlawful Detainer II,}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  awarding possession and unpaid rent to Appellee, already existed.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Third, G.F.G. argues that the
 cause of action in this case is barred by the doctrine of ripeness because the complaint was expressly made contingent upon reversal of }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Unlawful Detainer II}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
 by the Appellate Division, an event that had not yet taken place.}{\insrsid6238670 
\par }{\insrsid15938066\charrsid15938066 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [8]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab Arguably, Appellant}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
s two latter arguments are rendered moot by the 21 April 1997 Appellate Division opinion reversing the judgment in }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Unlawful Detainer II}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 .}{\insrsid15938066  }{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 We need not address either of these arguments, however, because we find that G.F.G.}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 s defective notice argument warrants reversal of the judgment below.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 This was precisely the same basis of the Appellate Division}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 s reversal in }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Unlawful Detainer II}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 .}{
\cs15\super\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid6238670 \chftn }{\f112\fs20\insrsid6238670 
Due to an administrative error,  footnote 1 to Supreme Court Case No. CVA96-016, filed on October 17, 1997 was incorrectly included.
\par }}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [9]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab Whether the Alternative Notice of Default in this case was defective such that Appellee}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 s complaint failed to state a claim is a question of law which we review }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 de novo}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 .}{
\insrsid15938066  }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Franceschi v. Schwartz}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 , 57 F.3d 828, 830 (9}{\super\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 th}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  Cir. 1995).
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [10]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab Guam}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 s unlawf
ul detainer statute, 21 G.C.A. }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  21103, was derived from California}{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 s former unlawful detainer statute, Cal. Civ. P. Code }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  1161.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
Unlike a common law breach of contract action, the purpose of an unlawful detainer action is to recover possession.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
Proceedings in an unlawful detainer action are intended to be summary in nature and are required by law to be expedited.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 21 G.C.A. }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  21120.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Also,}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 because an unlawful}{\insrsid15938066  }{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 detainer action is a summary remedy, the unlawful detainer statute must be complied with strictly.}{\i\insrsid15938066  }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Cal-American Income Property Fund IV v. Ho}{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 , 161 Cal. App. 3d 583, 585 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984).
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [11]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab To maintain a valid}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
unlawful detainer action under Guam law, the landlord must establish that the tenant has defaulted in the payment of rent, is in possession of the property without the landlord}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 s permission, and that the tenant has been served with a valid notice demanding payment or surrender of possession.}{\insrsid15938066  }{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 21 G.C.A. }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  21103.}{\insrsid15938066  }{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 To be valid, the default notice must be served at least five days prior to the filing of the action, must state the amount of rent which is due, and must be served within one year of the date that the rent became due.}{
\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 21 G.C.A. }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  21103(b).
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [12]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab California authority is clear as to the interpretation of the provision requiring the notice to state }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 the amount which is due.}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15938066  }{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 A default notice that overstates the amount due is insufficient to support an action for unlawful detainer.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Jayasinghe v. Lee}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
, 13 Cal.App. 4}{\super\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 th}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  Supp. 33, 37 (Cal. App. Dep}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 t Super Ct. 1993).}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Because the notice must be served within one year of the date when the rent becomes due,}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
it is invalid if the notice demands more than one year}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 s rent.}{\insrsid15938066  }{
\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Bevill v. Zoura}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 , 27 Cal. App. 4}{\super\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 th}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  694, 697-698 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994).
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [13]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab Nevertheless, the Archbishop asks this Court for a liberal interpretation of the }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 amount}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  requirement of }{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  21103(b), arguing that the purpose of the notice requirement is fairness to the tenant.}{
\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 According to the Archbishop, as long as the tenant has adequate information with which to determine the amount of rent due, a notice that overstates the amount is still valid.}{\insrsid15938066  }{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 We find this argument unpersuasive.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Under }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  21103, it is the landlord}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 s responsibility, not the tenant}{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 s, to giv
e notice of the amount that must be paid in order for the tenant to avoid a court ordered surrender of property.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
We fail to see why a notice that demands rent for a period of sixteen months, rather than the maximum twelve months permitted by statute, should be deemed valid simply because the tenant was in a position to know the correct amount.}{\insrsid15938066  }{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [14]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab The Archbishop cites }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Valov v. Tank}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 , 168 Cal. App. 3d 867 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) and }{
\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Budaef v. Huber}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 , 194 Cal. App. 2d 12 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961) to support the proposition that the validity of}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
a default notice must be determined on a case by case basis.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Neither case, however, addresses the specific issue in this appeal.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
More precisely, neither case involves a default notice that overstated the amount of rent due.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 In }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Valov}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
 the notice provided a formula by which the amount due was to be calculated.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Valov}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 , 168 Cal. App. 3d at 870.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
In that case, only the tenant possessed the information required to calculate the rent according to the formula in the lease.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Id.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 In }{
\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Budaef}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 ,}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 an}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
action for ejectment, there had been repeated demands for payment of the exact amount due prior to the final default notice.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Budaef}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 , 194 Cal. App. 2d at 15, 18.}{
\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [15]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab Quite the opposite exists under the facts of this case.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 While the A
rchbishop did serve a series of three notices to G.F.G., all three notices, including the notice at issue in this case, demanded rent in excess of the twelve month statutory limit.
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [16]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab Unlike the courts in }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Valov}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  and }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Budaef}{
\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 , we are not persuaded that considerations of fairness}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 justify a relaxed application of the notice requirement.}{\insrsid15938066  }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
The Appellate Division correctly rejected this argument in }{\i\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 Unlawful Detainer II}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066  and in this case, we likewise reach the same result.
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 CONCLUSION}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 [17]}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 \tab For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Superior Court is }{\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 REVERSED}{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 .
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 JANET HEALY WEEKS, }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par Associate Justice
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 JOSE LEON GUERRERO, }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par Associate Justice
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\b\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 PETER C. SIGUENZA, }{\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par Chief Justice
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15938066 {\insrsid6238670\charrsid15938066 ____________
\par }}