{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff5\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f5\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070409020205020404}Courier{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f169\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols;}{\f176\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman TUR;}
{\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 \f5\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;}{\*\cs16 \additive 
\scaps\fs19 GCA Header;}{\*\cs17 \additive \scaps\fs19 GCA Footer;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1186868\rsid2884089\rsid2885512\rsid9508377\rsid14042240}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}
{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min1}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy20\hr16\min25}{\version4}{\edmins3}{\nofpages10}{\nofwords2694}{\nofchars15356}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws18014}{\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\rsidroot2884089 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f5\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2884089 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f5\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2884089 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f5\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2884089 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f5\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2884089 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery2606\footery2606\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid2884089\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 \f5\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs16\b\scaps\f176\fs17\insrsid2884089 
Citizens Security Bank vs. Bidaure, 1997 Guam 3, (Opinion)
\par }\pard \qj \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 {\b\f176\fs22\insrsid2884089 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\f176\fs22\insrsid2884089 
\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\widctlpar
\tqc\tx3960\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 \f5\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 IN THE SUPREME COURT
\par TERRITORY OF GUAM
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx3960\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\b\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 CITIZENS SECURITY BANK (GUAM), INC.,
\par }{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Appellee,
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx3960\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid1186868\charrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx3960\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 vs.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx3960\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid1186868\charrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx3960\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\b\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 ESTER R. BIDAURE,
\par }{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Appellant.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx3960\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid14042240 Civil Case No. CVA96-010
\par }{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Filed: March 20, 1997
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx3960\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid1186868\charrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx3960\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\b\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Cite as: 1997 Guam 3
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx3960\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and Submitted 28 January 1997
\par Agana, Guam}{\f0\insrsid1186868\charrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx3960\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid1186868\charrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
Appearing for the Appellant
\par SETH FORMAN
\par Law Office of Keogh & Butler
\par Suite 105, C & A Prof. Building
\par 251 Martyr Street
\par P.O. Box GZ
\par Agana, Guam 96932}{\f0\insrsid1186868\charrsid1186868 
\par 
\par }{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Appearing for the Appellee
\par JOHN A. SPADE
\par Mair, Mair, Spade & Thompson
\par A Professional Corporation
\par Attorneys at Law
\par Suite 807, GCIC Building
\par 414 West Soledad Avenue
\par Agana, Guam 96910
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx3960\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\b\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 ______________________
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\b\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx3960\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\b\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 OPINION
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice, JANET HEALY WEEKS, and MONESSA G. LUJAN, Associate Justices.}{\f0\insrsid1186868\charrsid1186868 
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 WEEKS, J.:
\par }{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qj \fi432\li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Appe
llant, Ester R. Bidaure, whose signature appears on a Continuing Guaranty for the indebtedness of M & B Construction Company, appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court, following a bench trial, in favor of Appellee Citizens Security Bank. The Superior
 Court, the Honorable Benjamin J.F. Cruz presiding, found Bidaure liable to Citizens Security for the balance of a defaulted loan to M & B Construction, plus interest, attorneys}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  fees and court costs. Appellant contends on appeal that the Continuing Guaranty at issue is unenforceable for failure of consideration. Based, however, on Appellant}
{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 s failure to adequately raise this defense at trial, we affirm the judgment of th
e Superior Court.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx1800\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\b\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 \tab I. BACKGROUND
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par [1]\tab 
On 27 September 1991, M & B Construction entered into a construction contract with Jose Delgado to build a two unit duplex house for Delgado for $195,000.00. The payments from Delgado to M & B Construction were to be made in installments as specified in t
he Construction Contract. To obtain additional funds for the Delgado project, M & B applied for a $50,000.00 loan from Citizens Security Bank. M & B}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 s loan application was approved by Citizens, and the funds were 
disbursed to M & B in a single check on 8 October 1991. Also on 8 October 1991, Antonio B. Simpao signed a promissory note on the loan to M & B in his capacity as General Manager of M & B, and also signed a Continuing Guaranty on the loan in his personal 
capacity. As further security for the loan, Simpao, on behalf of M & B, assigned to Citizens Security Bank M & B}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 s rights under the above referenced Construction Contract between M & B and Delgado.
\par 
\par [2]\tab On 12 November 1991, Antonio Simpao, Manuel Alberto, and Ester Bidaure signed a document entitled }{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Continuing Guaranty (Relating to Past and Future Indebtedness).}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  This Continuin
g Guaranty was for an amount not to exceed $80,000.00. According to the testimony of Simpao, the reason that the Continuing Guaranty was for a maximum amount of $80,000.00, rather than $50,000.00, is that M & B was, at the time the Continuing Guaranty was
 signed, in the process of applying for an additional $30,000.00 loan. (Trial Transcript, page 16, line 19.) Citizens eventually denied this additional loan request.
\par 
\par [3]\tab In its closing argument at trial, Appellee Citizens addressed various issues raised by
 Appellant Biduare pertaining to the amount of the defaulted loan. Appellee ended its closing argument by presenting its calculation of the outstanding balance of the M & B loan as $20,700.27 in principal, and $10,834.45 in interest.
\par 
\par [4]\tab Despite Appellant}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
s presentation of evidence challenging the amount of the defaulted loan, Appellant}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
s only argument at closing was that the Continuing Guaranty signed by Appellant on 12 November 1991 is unenforceable for failure of consideration. According to Appellant, the potential consideration for the Continuing Guaranty was M & B}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 s second loan application, the one for $30,000.00. This, ac
cording to Appellant, is why the Continuing Guaranty was for up to $80,000.00 rather than $50,000.00, the amount of M & B}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 s approved loan. Because the $30,000.00 loan application was denied, Appellant argued, there was no consideration given to support the Continuing Guaranty signed by Bidaure, and so nothing to bind Bidaure as a guarantor.

\par 
\par [5]\tab Responding to Appellant}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 s closing argument, Appellee argued that, according 
to Simpao, the Continuing Guaranty executed on 12 November 1991 was one of the conditions of the original loan to M & B and was for any amount provided the amount does not exceed $80,000.00. The $50,000.00 loan approved and disbursed to M & B, Appellee ar
gued, was consideration for the Continuing Guaranty, and all of the guarantors, including Bidaure are therefore responsible for the unpaid balance.
\par 
\par [6]\tab Immediately following closing arguments, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Appellee Citizens
 against all of the defendants, including Appellant Bidaure, for the entire outstanding balance of the M & B loan, $31,570.42. The court held an additional hearing on the issues of attorneys}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  fees and costs on 14 August 1996. In the court}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 s Judgment, filed on 22 August 1996, the court awarded attorneys\rquote  fees in the amount of $5,236.25, and costs in the amount of $182.25. Notice of appeal was timely filed.
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx1800\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\b\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 \tab II. DISCUSSION
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par [7]\tab On appeal, Appellant raises the failure of consideration issue, first presented in her closing argument at trial. According to Appellant, because the Continuing Guaranty was executed a month after the borrowed funds ($50,000.00)
 were disbursed to the borrower, M & B, the Continuing Guaranty was without consideration. Appellant}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 s position is that she signed the Continuing Guaranty, which was for an amount not to exceed $80,000.00, in ord
er to enable M & B to secure an additional $30,000.00 loan from Citizens. If the additional loan had been approved, according to Appellant, the additional $30,000.00 would have been consideration for the Continuing Guaranty. Because, however, the addition
al $30,000.00 was denied by Citizens, Appellant contends, her signature on the Continuing Guaranty was not supported by consideration.
\par 
\par [8]\tab To support her argument, Appellant cites Guam Civil Code }{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 2792, also codi
fied at 18 Guam Code Annotated }{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 31201, which provides as follows:
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi432\li432\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin432\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\b\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\b\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 2792.}{\b\f0\insrsid1186868\charrsid1186868  Necessity of consider}{\b\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 ation.}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  Where a guaranty is entered into at the same time with the origina
l obligation, or with the acceptance of the latter by the guarantee, and forms with that obligation a part of the consideration to him, no other consideration need exist. In all other cases there must be a consideration distinct from that of the original 
obligation.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par In addition, Appellant argues that even without }{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
2792, the well accepted common law rule is that when a contract of guaranty is entered into independent of the transaction creating the original debt, the guarantor}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 s promise must be supported by new consideration.
\par 
\par [9]\tab In support of the trial court}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
s Judgment, Appellee Citizens Security points out that Appellant}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
s failure of consideration argument is an affirmative defense und
er Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c). According to Appellee, because Appellant did not include this affirmative defense in her pleadings as required by Rule 8(c), this Court should deem Appellant to have waived the defense. We agree.
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 [10]\tab 
Rule 8(c) of the
 Guam Rules of Civil Procedure, identical to Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules, requires that parties include affirmative defenses in their pleadings. Courts have interpreted this rule to mean that affirmative defenses not included in the pleadings are waive
d. Circuit Courts of Appeal have generally refused to address affirmative defenses not included in the pleadings and raised for the first time on appeal. }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Putnam v. DeRosa,}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
 963 F.2d 480 (1}{\f0\super\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 st}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  Cir. 1992)(holding laches defense waived); }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. v. Technical Design Associates, Inc.}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 , 937 F.2d 840 (2}{\f0\super\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 nd}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  Cir. 1991)(holding statute of limitations defense waived); }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
Great Southwest Life Insurance Co. v. Frazier,}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  860 F.2d 896 (9}{\f0\super\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 th}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  Cir. 1988)(holding estoppel defense waived); }{
\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Northwest Acceptance Corporation v. Lynnwood Equipment, Inc.}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 , 834 F.2d 823 (9}{\f0\super\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 th}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
 Cir. 1988)(holding novation defense waived); }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Perry v. O\rquote Donnell}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 , 749 F.2d 1346 (9}{\f0\super\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 th}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
 Cir. 1984)(holding statute of limitations defense waived).}{\cs15\f0\super\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi270\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar
\tx0\tx270\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f5\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\b\f176\fs22\super\insrsid2884089 
\chftn }{\b\f176\fs20\insrsid2884089 There are a number of cases, including some involving the failure of consideration defense, in which trial courts have rejected attempts to raise affirmative defenses not included in the pleadings. For example, in }{
\b\i\f176\fs20\insrsid2884089 Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Central Air Control, Inc.}{\b\f176\fs20\insrsid2884089 , 785 F.Supp. 898
 (D. Kan. 1992), under facts similar to those of the instant case, guarantors of certain promissory notes raised, in opposition to a summary judgment motion, the defense of failure of consideration. The District Court held that, because the defendants fai
led to raise this defense in their answer, the defense was waived. }{\b\i\f176\fs20\insrsid2884089 Id.}{\b\f176\fs20\insrsid2884089  at 901. As in the }{\b\i\f176\fs20\insrsid2884089 Federal Deposit}{\b\f176\fs20\insrsid2884089 
 case, attempts to raise defenses not included in pleadings have often been rejected by trial courts. The decisions of trial courts to reject these untimely defenses are usually affirmed on appeal. }{\b\i\f176\fs20\insrsid2884089 
See, e.g., Travellers International, A.G. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,}{\b\f176\fs20\insrsid2884089  41 F.3d 1570 (2nd Cir. 1994); }{\b\f176\fs20\ul\insrsid2884089 Bokunewicz v. Purolator Products, Inc.}{\b\f176\fs20\insrsid2884089 
, 907 F.2d 1396, 1402 (3rd Cir. 1990); }{\b\i\f176\fs20\insrsid2884089 Equal Employment Opportunity Comm}{\b\i\f176\fs20\insrsid2884089 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\b\i\f176\fs20\insrsid2884089 
n v. White and Son Enterprises}{\b\f176\fs20\insrsid2884089 , 881 F.2d 1006 (11}{\b\f176\fs20\super\insrsid2884089 th}{\b\f176\fs20\insrsid2884089  Cir. 1989).}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par 
\par [11]\tab All of these cases involved affirmative defenses that were never in
cluded in the pleadings, and never raised at all prior to the appeal. From the language of most of these cases, it seems that when courts have refused to address affirmative defenses that were not pleaded as required by Rule 8(c), an important factor has 
been the fact that these defenses had not been raised at all at the trial level. For example, in }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Perry v. O}{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Donnell,}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  the Ninth Circuit held as follows:}{\f0\insrsid2884089 
\par }{\f0\insrsid1186868\charrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qj \li540\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin540\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
Because Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c) requires a defendant to plead affirmatively the statute of limitations defense, we refuse to address the merits of the defendants\rquote  claim. Failure to raise the defense in the district court constitutes a waiver.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qj \fi324\li540\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin540\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
*** Our decision in }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Rivera v. Anaya,}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  726 F.2d 564 (9}{\f0\super\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 th}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
 Cir. 1984), is not to the contrary. There, we merely recognized that failure to assert the statute of limitations defense in the initial pleading does not necessarily waive the defense. Because we found no prejudice to 
the other party, we agreed with the districts court}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
s ruling that the defendant could raise the defense for the first time in a motion for summary judgment. }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Id}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 . at 566. Here, the defendants never raised the 
issue in the district court, and we decline to address it on appeal.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Perry}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 , 749 F.2d at 1353.
\par 
\par [12]\tab As in the }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Perry}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  case from the Ninth Circuit, other circuits that have rejected affirmative defenses per Rule 8(c) also base this rejection, at least in par
t, upon the fact that the defenses were being raised for the first time on appeal. }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 See e.g.}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 , }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Ellis v. Wynalda}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 , 999 F.2d 243 (7}{\f0\super\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 th}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  Cir. 1993)(holding that collateral estoppel defense was waived because of failure of defendant to assert in answer }{
\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 or at any time}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  in district court).
\par 
\par [13]\tab Fairness to the opposing party is also an important factor in determining whether failure to plead an affirmative defense should be deemed a waiver of the defense. As indicated by the above quote from }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
Perry v. O\rquote Donnell}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 , there is a line of Ninth Circuit cases that stand for the proposition that an affirmative defense not included in the pleadings is only waived if the other party has suffered some prejudice. 
}{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Rivera v. Anaya,}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  726 F.2d 564 (9}{\f0\super\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 th}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  Cir. 1984); }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
Healy Tibbitts Construction Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America,}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  679 F.2d 803 (9}{\f0\super\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 th}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  Cir. 1982).
\par 
\par [14]\tab The Fifth Circuit takes a similar approach to this issue, and has allowed affirmative defenses not raised at the trial level when fair notice has been given to the other party in the course of litigation. }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
Marine Overseas Services, Inc. v. Crossocean Shipping Co.}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 , 791 F.2d 1227 (5}{\f0\super\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 th}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  Cir. 1986). In }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
Marine Overseas,}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  the Fifth Circuit determined from the district court}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 s findings of fact th
at the parties were well aware of an agency relationship that formed the basis of a contested affirmative defense. The court concluded that adequate notice to the objecting party had been given to justify allowing the affirmative defense. }{
\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Marine Overseas,}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  791 F.2d at 1233.
\par 
\par [15]\tab In the instant case, the failure of consideration defense, though never pleaded, was raised at trial during closing arguments. Appellant argues that the defense was therefore tried by implied consent, and should be allowed as an exc
eption to Rule 8(c), as authorized by Rule 15(b). Based on considerations of fairness, however, we reach a different conclusion regarding the applicability of Rule 15(b) in this case.
\par 
\par [16]\tab 
Rule 15(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure, identical to Rule 15(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, has been recognized by the various circuits as an exception to the pleading requirement of Rule 8(c). It has often been invoked to permit def
endants to present affirmative defenses at trial or on appeal even though they did not include these defenses in their pleadings. The First Circuit, in }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Ramirez-Rivera,}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  869 F.2d 624 (1}{\f0\super\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 st}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  Cir. 1989), discussed this use of Rule 15(b) as follows:
\par }{\f0\insrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qj \fi324\li540\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin540\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
[C]ourts may treat an affirmative defense that has been raised after the pleadings stage, but has been fully tried under the express or implied consent of the parties, as if it had been raised in the original responsive pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b); }{
\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 see}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  8 }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  }{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  1278 (1987). This rule is applicable, however, only where it is clear that the }{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 issue not raised in the pleadings and not preserved in the pretrial order has in fact been tried ... .}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Systems, Inc. v. Bridge Electronics Co.}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 , 335 F.2d 465, 466-67 (3d Cir. 1964). Thus, an affirmative defense that was not raised in any capacity at trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Id.}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  at 466.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Ramirez-Rivera}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 , 869 F.2d at 626-27; See also, }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Jakobsen v. Massachusetts Port Authority,}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
 520 F.2d 810, 813 (1}{\f0\super\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 st}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  Cir. 1975)(}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Under Rule 15 the district court may and should liberally allow an amendment to the pleadings if prejudice does not result.}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 ).
\par 
\par [17]\tab Other circuits follow the same approach as the First Circuit, and allow unpleaded claims to be raised on appeal provided they have been tried by express or implied consent. See e.g.,}{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
 Campbell v. Board of Trustees,}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  817 F.2d 499 (9}{\f0\super\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 th}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  Cir. 1987); }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 United 
States for Use of Seminole Sheet Metal v. Sci, Inc.}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 , 828 F.2d 671 (11}{\f0\super\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 th}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  Cir. 1987); }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
Apple Barrel Productions, Inc. v. Beard,}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  730 F.2d 384 (5}{\f0\super\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 th}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  Cir. 1984).
\par 
\par [18]\tab All of the above circuits apply the same general approach to Rule 15(b) determinations, emphasizing fairness to the opposing party as the primary consideration. As the Eleventh Circuit noted in }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
Seminole Sheet Metal,}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi324\li540\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin540\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
Failure to object to evidence raising issues outside of the pleadings constitutes implied consent as long as the evidence is not relev
ant to issues already within the pleadings. *** Courts, however, will not find implied consent if the nonmoving party would be prejudiced by the injection of the new issue.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Seminole Sheet Metal}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 , 828 F.2d at 677(citations omitted).
\par 
\par [19]\tab The Ninth Circuit has articulated the relevant inquiry for determining whether an issue has been tried by implied consent, for purposes of Rule 15(b), as follows:
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi324\li540\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin540\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
The purpose of Rule 15(b) is to allow an amendment of the pleadings to bring them in line with the actual issues upon which the case was tried. *** While it is true that a party}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 s failure to object to evidence regarding an unpleaded issue may be evidence of implied consent to a trial of the issue, it must appear that the
 party understood the evidence was introduced to prove the unpleaded issue.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Campbell,}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  817 F.2d at 506 (citations omitted). In }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Campbell}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
, the plaintiff sought to amend his pleadings after the trial to in
clude the issue of breach of a covenant of good-faith. Campbell argued that evidence of this issue had been introduced without objection at trial. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, however, because the court found that the evidence only inferentia
lly supported the good-faith claim, and that there was no indication that the opposing party, by not objecting, recognized that the issue was being tried. }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 Id.}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par 
\par [20]\tab Like the circuit courts cited above, this Court looks to considerations of fairness in deter
mining whether to allow a party to present, on appeal, an affirmative defense, arguably raised at trial, but not included in the pleadings. A number of factors, in the instant case, weigh against allowing the failure of consideration defense under Rule 15
(
b). Among them is the fact that the defense was never presented in an opening statement at trial, or at any time during the six years prior to the trial of this matter. In addition, much, if not most, of the evidence Appellant presented during the trial, 
did not relate to the failure of consideration defense, but instead related to other issues not even mentioned in Appellant}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 s closing argument. Finally, the fact that Appellee Citizens did not reference the failure of consideration issue during its oral argument, but instead addressed only Appellant}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 s dispute regarding the amount owing on the loan, indicates that Appellee did not recognize that evidence had been introduce
d to prove the unpleaded defense. If Appellee Citizens had truly understood that the failure of consideration issue was being litigated, it could have called additional witnesses to support the contention that the Continuing Guaranty was a condition of th
e original $50,000.00 loan.
\par 
\par [21]\tab Based on the above described factors, it would be unfair to allow Appellant to assert the defense of failure of consideration on appeal. Appellant did not include this defense in her pleadings as required by Rule 8(c), and 
the defense was not tried by implied consent within the meaning of Rule 15(b). Accordingly, this Court will not address the failure of consideration defense on appeal.
\par 
\par [22]\tab A remaining issue is Appellee}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 s request for attorneys}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
 fees and costs incurred in defending this action on appeal. We find such an award, in this case, justified by the express lan{\*\bkmkstart QuickMark}{\*\bkmkend QuickMark}guage of the Guaranty which formed the basis of Appellant}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 s liability on the defaulted loan. E.g., }{\i\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
Berven Carpets Corp. v. Davis,}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  210 Cal.App.2d 206, 215 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)(}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 It is beyond dispute that such request finds a legal basis in the provisions of the promissory note}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 ). A provision of the Continuing Guaranty in this case provides that }{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 [g]uarantors agree to pay a reasonable attorney}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
s fee and all other costs and expenses which may be incurred by Bank in enforcement of this guaranty.}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  Accordingly, the trial court is hereby ordered to conduct a hearing for the purpose of awarding Appellee additional attorneys}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  fees and costs.}{\f0\insrsid1186868\charrsid1186868 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx1800\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\b\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 \tab III. CONCLUSION
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par [22]\tab For the foregoing reasons, the Judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. The cause is REMANDED to the Superior Court solely for the purpose of awarding Appellee reasonable attorneys}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868  fees and costs incurred in defending this action on appeal.
\par 
\par Dated: 27 February 1997.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 JANET HEALY WEEKS

\par Associate Justice
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 MONESSA G. LUJAN

\par Associate Justice
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 PETER C. SIGUENZA

\par Chief Justice}{\f0\insrsid2884089 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx540\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid1186868\charrsid1186868 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx1800\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1186868 {\f0\insrsid2884089\charrsid1186868 _______
\par }}