{\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};}
{\f169\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols;}{\f172\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f173\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f175\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f176\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f177\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f178\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f179\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f180\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;}{
\s16\ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls1\pnrnot0\pndec }\faauto\ls1\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Quick A.;}}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid0\listsimple{\listlevel
\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\i\f0\fs24 \s16\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listname ;}\listid1}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid1
\listoverridecount1{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}\ls1}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid217520
\rsid4023510\rsid6758998\rsid9508377\rsid10818281\rsid15088945}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min1}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy20\hr11\min11}
{\version5}{\edmins2}{\nofpages8}{\nofwords3055}{\nofchars17416}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws20431}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440 
\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\rsidroot15088945 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15088945 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15088945 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15088945 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15088945 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid15088945\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\insrsid15088945 
Midsea Industrial, Inc. v. HK Engineering, Ltd., 1998 Guam 14, Opinion \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid15088945 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid4023510 1}}}{\fs20\insrsid15088945  of 13
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid15088945 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid15088945 
\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\pararsid10818281 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 MIDSEA INDUSTRIAL, INC.,}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab \tab )
\tab Supreme Court Case No. }{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid6758998 CVA97-008}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \qj \fi4320\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 )\tab Su}{\insrsid6758998 perior Court Case No. }{\b\insrsid6758998\charrsid6758998 CV0798-94}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 

\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Plaintiff-Appellant,\tab }{\insrsid10818281 \tab }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi4320\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid4023510 vs. \tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid4023510 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi4320\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi-6480\li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin6480\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 HK ENGINEERING, LTD., \tab \tab }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 )\tab }{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab \tab 
OPINION
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 a Guam Corp., and UTTAM}{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}
}{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 S, INC., }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab )
\par }\pard \qj \fi-4320\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 a Guam Corp.\tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab )
\par }\pard \qj \fi4320\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi-2880\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Defendants-Appellees.\tab )
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 ____________________________________)}{\insrsid10818281 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Filed September 4, 1998
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Cite as: 1998 Guam 14}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 On Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Submitted on Briefs February 19, 1998
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\ul\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Attorney for the Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
\par Michael J. Bordallo, Esq.
\par Phillips & Bordallo, P.C.
\par 410 West O}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Brien Drive
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910
\par }{\v\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
\par }{\ul\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Attorney for the Defendant-Appellee
\par }{\insrsid10818281  }{\ul\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Uttam}{\ul\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\ul\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s, Inc.}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
\par Phillip Torres, Esq.
\par Gayle & Teker, P.C.
\par 330 Hernan Cortez Avenue
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910
\par }{\insrsid10818281 
\par }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice; JANET HEALY WEEKS, and BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ, Associate Justices.
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 CRUZ, J.:
\par }{\insrsid10818281\charrsid10818281 
\par }{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [1]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab The Plaintiff-Appellant, Midsea Industrial, Inc., appeals from a Superior Court judgment granting}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
Defendant-Appellee Uttam}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s, Inc.}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default and Default Judgment.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
The Plaintiff-Appellant contends that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in granting the motion below}{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 .}{\b\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
After careful review of the records and the arguments presented on appeal, we have serious concerns relating to the trial court}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s role in possibly prejudicing the Plaintiff-Appellant.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
We, therefore, REMAND this case to the Superior Court for a determination of whether prejudice to the Plaintiff-Appellant, particularly attributable to the trial court, exists, which may require a different result.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND}{\b\insrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid10818281\charrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [2]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab 
The Plaintiff-Appellant, Midsea Industrial, Inc., is seeking recovery of payment and the return of goods and equipment from the Defendant-Appellee, Uttam}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s, Inc.,}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 based on the sale of goods and equipment to Defendant HK Engineering, designated for Defendant-Appellee.}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The goods, wares and equipment in question were the result of a purchase order between the Plaintiff-Appellant and Defendant HK Engineering dated October 28, 1992.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
The total cost of the goods was approximately $79,686.42 with a down payment of approximately $31, 333.00 paid by Defendant HK Engineering on or about November 17, 1992.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
The goods were shipped by the Plaintiff-Appellant on or about November 26, 1992.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 They were used and installed by Defendant HK Engineering in a construction project benefitting}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 the Defendant-Appellee.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The Plaintiff-Appellant filed a complaint against Defendant HK Engineering, Ltd. and the Defendant-Appellee on May 24, 1994 seeki
ng to recover the balance due, plus interest from either Defendant HK Engineering, directly, or the Defendant-Appellee, based on a claim of unjust enrichment.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
Service was made on Harry Uttamchandi on May 30, 1994.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Some correspondence occurred between Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 and Defendant-Appellee}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s counsel between July 1994 and October 1994.}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Entry of default was filed by the Superior Court}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Clerk}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 of}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Court on December 19, 1994}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 and}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 a default}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
hearing was scheduled for January 17, 1995.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Mr. Uttamchandi, Harry}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s father, was present at the January 17, 1995 hearing, but counsel for the Defendant-Appellee was not.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
There was some dispute as to whether Harry was authorized to receive service.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
Mr. Uttamchandi indicated that his son, Harry, was only a manager, not a corporation member and that Mr. Uttamchandi did not receive the complaint served upon Harry.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
The hearing was continued to February 16, 1995 at which time neither Mr. Uttamchandi nor counsel for the Defendant-Appellee was}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 present.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
A Default Judgment was entered against both defendants on March 9, 1995.}{\insrsid10818281 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [3]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab The Declaration and Order for Issuance of Writ of Execution and Order for Examination of Judgment Debtor were filed June 9, 
1995 and then subsequently heard on August 16, 1995. A Writ of Execution was issued and filed on June 21, 1995.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
Defendant-Appellee filed a motion to set aside the entry of default and default judgment on July 24, 1995.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The Plaintiff-Appellant filed an oppo
sition on February 22, 1996, to which the Defendant-Appellee replied on March 18, 1996.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
The motion was heard by the court on April 16, 1996, nearly nine (9) months after the filing of the motion, at which time the court took the matter under advisement.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 A 
written Decision and Order was issued on February 4, 1997 granting the motion to set aside the entry of default and default judgment. A notice of appeal was filed on February 28, 1997.}{\insrsid10818281 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 ANALYSIS}{\b\insrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid10818281\charrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [4]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab Motions to Set Aside an Entry of Default and a}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
Default Judgment are governed by Guam Rules of}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Civil}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Procedure}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 55(c)}{
\cs15\super\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid15088945 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid15088945 
The Rule provides in pertinent part that }{\fs20\insrsid15088945 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid15088945 
[f]or good cause shown, the court may set aside an entry of default, and if a judgment by default has been entered, may likewise set it aside in accordance with Rule 60(b)}{\insrsid15088945 .  }{\fs20\insrsid15088945 Guam R. Civ. P. 55(c).}}}{
\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 and 60(b)}{\cs15\super\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid15088945 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid15088945 Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part:
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid15088945 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid15088945 On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party}{\fs20\insrsid15088945 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid15088945 s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or  
excusable neglect;  (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);  (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other miscon
d
uct of an adverse party;  (4)  the judgment is void;  (5)  the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or if it is no longer equitable that the judgment should
 have prospective application; or  (6)  any other reason justifying relief from operation of the Judgment.*  G}{\fs16\insrsid15088945 uam}{\fs20\insrsid15088945  R}{\fs16\insrsid15088945 .}{\fs20\insrsid15088945  C}{\fs16\insrsid15088945 iv}{
\fs20\insrsid15088945 . P. 60(b).}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 , respectively.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Rule}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 55(c)}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 motions}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 are}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 addressed extensively by this court in the case of }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
Adams v. Duenas}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 , 1998 Guam 15.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 We focus here on the review of the Rule 60(b) motion in which we examine the trial court}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s decision for clear abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Technologies, Inc.}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 , 840 F.2d 685, 687 (9}{\super\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 th}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  Cir. 1988).}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Abuse of discretion has previously been defined by this court and other courts of this jurisdiction to give broad latitude to trial courts.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
"A trial court decision will not be reversed unless it [the appellate court] has 'a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing of the relevant factors.'" }{
\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Santos v. Carney}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 , 1997 Guam 4, }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  4 (citation omitted,).}{\insrsid10818281 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Although each case must depend upon its own facts, a rule of thumb generally applied is that the }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 trial court}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s exercise of discretion should not be disturbed unless there is }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
A trial judge abuses his/her discretion only when the decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or where the record contains no evidence on which the judge could have rationally based the decision (citations omitted).}{\insrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid10818281 
\par }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Lynn v. Chin Hueng Int}{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 l, Inc}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 ., Civ. No. 85-0066A, 1986 WL 68916 * 2}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 (D. Guam App. Div. Oct. 22, 1986), }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 aff}{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 d}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 ; 852 F.2d 1221 (9}{\super\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 th}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  Cir. 1988).}{\insrsid10818281  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [5]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab A court will deny a motion to set aside a default judgment if it is shown that (1) the defendant}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s culpable conduct led to the default; (2) the defendant has no meritorious defense, or (3) the plaintiff would be prejudiced if the judgment is set aside.}{
\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Falk v. Allen, }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9}{\super\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 th}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  Cir. 1984); }{
\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Alan Neuman Productions, Inc. v. Albright}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 , 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9}{\super\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 th}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  Cir. 1988); }{
\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Price v. Seydel}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 , 961 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9}{\super\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 th}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  Cir. 1992).}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 A finding of but one of the three elements is sufficient to deny vacation of a default judgment.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Cassidy v. Tenorio}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415-16}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 (9}{\super\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 th}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  Cir. 1988).}{\insrsid10818281  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [6]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab Two}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 policy}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 determinations}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 drive}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Rule 60(b) review}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 67 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 that the rule is meant to be remedial in nature and should be applied liberally, and that a default judgment is considered to be a drastic measure, only appropriate in ex
treme circumstances because, whenever possible, cases should be decided on their merits.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Falk}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 , 739 F.2d at 463.}{\insrsid10818281 
\par 
\par {\pntext\pard\plain\s16 \insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 A.\tab}}\pard\plain \s16\qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\jclisttab\tx720{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls1\pnrnot0\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120 {\pntxta .}}
\faauto\ls1\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10818281 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Culpable Conduct by the Defendant-Appellee Leading to Default}{\ul\insrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \s16\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440{\*\pn \pnlvlcont\ilvl0\ls0\pnrnot0\pndec }\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\ul\insrsid10818281 
\par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar{\*\pn \pnlvlcont\ilvl0\ls0\pnrnot0\pndec }\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [7]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
\tab The Plaintiff-Appellant alleges culpable conduct by the Defendant-Appellee based on the Defendant-Appellee}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s initial failure to timely answer the complaint.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The record indicates that there was an apparent lack of
 communication between the Defendant-Appellee and counsel as to the timing of the hearings, as evidenced through the client}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s presence at the January 17, 1995 hearing and the absence of counsel for the Defendant-Appellee.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
There was also a question as to whether proper service had been made on the}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Defendant-Appellee based on the service made upon Harry Uttamchandi whom the Defendant-Appellee argues is not a }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 corporation member.}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The Plaintiff-Appellant cites a case which}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
stands for the proposition that default judgments should not be set aside because of a client}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
s failure to notify his attorneys of receipt of a complaint and motion for default.}{\i\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 U.S. v. $22,640.00 in U.S. Currency}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 , 615 F.2d 356, 360 (5}{
\super\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 th}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  Cir. 1980).}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 In }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 U.S. v. $22,640.00}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
, the court made a determination that the failure to notify counsel of the receipt of the complaint did not constitute justifiable neglect as used in Rule 60(b)(1).}{\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Id.}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 On appeal, the court recognized that such a determination was within the discretion of the trial court and one not to be disturbed absent a showing of clear abuse of that discretion.}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Id.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
However, in this case, the trial court found that poor communication between the Defendant-Appellee and counsel for the Defendant-Appellee was a contributing factor in the default but attributed most of the responsibility to the attorn
ey, not to the Defendant-Appellee}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s culpable action. }{\insrsid10818281 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [8]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab The Plaintiff-Appellant responds to this issue by arguing that a client chooses his attorney and should not be permitted to avoid the consequences of his agent}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s actions.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 , 370 U.S. 626, 634, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1390 (1962).}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 However, }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 default judgments should not be used to discipline attorneys; it is the client who suffers by}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 being}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 deprived}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 of}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 his}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 day}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 in}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 court.}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 INVST.}{\i\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Financial}{\i\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Group,}{\i\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Inc.}{
\i\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 v.}{\i\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 ., 815 F.2d 391, 400 (6}{\super\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 th}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  Cir. 1987).}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The court in }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 INVST. Financial}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  opined that }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 although a party who chooses an attorney takes the risk of suffering from the}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
attorney}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s incompetence, we do not believe that this record exhibits circumstances in whi
ch a client should suffer the ultimate sanction of losing his case without any consideration of the merits because of his attorney}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s neglect and inattention.}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Id.}{
\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Similarly, the court below did not believe the Defendant-Appellee should suffer because of counsel}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s actions or inaction.}{\insrsid10818281 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [9]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab The Plaintiff-Appellant argues further evidence of the Defendant-Appellee}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s culpable conduct is grounded in the fact that there was a long passage of time between the Entry of Default and Default Judgment and then the subsequent setting aside of that judgment.}{
\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The Plaintiff-Appellant states that preju
dice has ensued based on the fact that it had to wait almost a full year for the Motion to Set Aside Default to be heard, and then an additional ten months for the Decision and Order to be issued, seemingly indicating that this delay was due to culpable c
onduct.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 However, no facts have been asserted to indicate that these delays were due to the culpable conduct of the Defendant-Appellee.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
We do not see how the Plaintiff-Appellant can claim that the Defendant-Appellee is somehow responsible for the trial court}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s delay in hearing the motion or issuing the Decision and Order almost a year later. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the Entry of Default and Default Judgment were not due to any 
culpable conduct of the Defendant-Appellee.}{\insrsid10818281 
\par 
\par {\pntext\pard\plain\s16 \insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 B.\tab}}\pard\plain \s16\qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\jclisttab\tx720{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls1\pnrnot0\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120 {\pntxta .}}
\faauto\ls1\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10818281 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Meritorious Defenses of the Defendant-Appellee}{\insrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \s16\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440{\*\pn \pnlvlcont\ilvl0\ls0\pnrnot0\pndec }\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid10818281 
\par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar{\*\pn \pnlvlcont\ilvl0\ls0\pnrnot0\pndec }\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [10]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
\tab If it be shown that the Defendant-Appellee lacked a meritorious defense then a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside should be denied.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The court must determine}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
whether there is some possibility that the outcome of the suit after a full trial will be contrary to the result achieved by the default.}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Hawaii Carpenters}{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
 Trust Funds v. Stone}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 , 794 F.2d 508, 513 (9}{\super\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 th}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  Cir. 1986); }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 INVST}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 . }{
\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Financial}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 , 815 F.2d at 399.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
The present case is based on the contention that the Defendant-Appellee is liable to the Plaintiff-Appellant for products}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 received}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 and}{
\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 installed}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 by}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Defendant}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 HK}{
\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Engineering.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 No}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 contract}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
existed between the Defendant-Appellee and the Plaintiff-Appellant.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The Defendant-Appellee asserts that it paid for those products and services rendered by Defendant HK Engineering and that it is not,
 therefore, liable to the Plaintiff-Appellant.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 If the Defendant-Appellee were to prove this contention, no liability would be found on its part.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
In its proposed answer, the Defendant-Appellee raised several possible defenses}{\cs15\super\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar{\*\pn \pnlvlcont\ilvl0\ls0\pnrnot0\pndec }
\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid15088945 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid15088945 The following defenses were raised in the Defendant-Appellee}{\fs20\insrsid15088945 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid15088945 s answer}{\fs20\insrsid15088945 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 67 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid15088945  (1) the Plaintiff-Appellant}{
\fs20\insrsid15088945 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid15088945 s complaint is barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction; (2) the Plaintiff-Appellant}{\fs20\insrsid15088945 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid15088945 s complaint is barred for lack of mutuality of obligation; (3
) the debt is not owing and due from the Defendant-Appellee; (4) a lack of privity between the Plaintiff-Appellant and the Defendant-Appellee; (5) misjoinder by the Plaintiff-Appellant; (6) the statute of frauds; (7) the fact that the Plaintiff-Appellant 
i
s a foreign corporation, nor licensed to engage in business in Guam; and (8) the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and laches.  It is unnecessary for the Defendant-Appellee to establish that an outcome, favorable to the Defendant-Appellee, would result based 
on any of the aforementioned defenses, but instead, merely that a meritorious defense did and does exist.}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 .}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The trial court found that Defendant-Appellee}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s defenses seemed plausible and, furthermore, that there wa
s a strong possibility that the outcome, after a full trial, would be contrary to the result achieved by default.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
The Plaintiff-Appellant attempts to draw a distinction between the words plausible and meritorious.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 It is unnecessary to examine any differenc
e between the words in this situation since the trial court also stated that a result contrary to the one achieved by default was highly possible.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Hawaii Carpenters}{
\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 , 794 F.2d at 513 (holding that the necessary d
etermination to be made in determining whether a meritorious defense existed is whether the outcome after a trial would be different from the one achieved by default).}{\insrsid10818281 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [11]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab The Plaintiff-Appellant argues that in the case of }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Direct Mail Specialists, }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 which also involved}{
\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 a}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 lack}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 of}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 privity of}{
\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 contract}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 defense,}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 the}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 court denied}{
\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 the}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Rule 60(b)}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 motion}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
because culpable conduct of the defendant was established. 840 F.2d at 688-90.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The Plaintiff-Appellant argues that although the court did not reach the issue of whe
ther the lack of privity defense was meritorious, it stated that no meritorious defense would have overridden the defendant}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s culpable conduct.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The Plaintiff-Appellant apparently argues that in }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Direct Mail Specialists}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 , the court, having already established culpable conduct, in one part of the test, would have allowed a sufficiently meritorious defense by the defendant to support Rule 60(b) relief.}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 However, as previously recognized by the parties, the }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Falk}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  test is disjunctive.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
We are not persuaded by the Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s argument that a finding on one part of the }{
\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Falk}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  test would, by itself, outweigh another part of the test when such is not the rule}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 of}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 law.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 trial}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 court}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 correctly}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 determined}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 that}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 a}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 meritorious}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 defense}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 existed}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 and}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 that}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 the Default Judgment should be set aside and the case decided on its merits.}{\insrsid10818281 
\par 
\par {\pntext\pard\plain\s16 \insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 C.\tab}}\pard\plain \s16\qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\jclisttab\tx720{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls1\pnrnot0\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120 {\pntxta .}}
\faauto\ls1\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10818281 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Prejudice to the Plaintiff-Appellant if the Default Judgment was Set Aside}{\insrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \s16\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid10818281 
\par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [12]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab Possible prejudice to 
the plaintiff is another factor in determining whether a default judgment should be vacated.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
In this jurisdiction, the courts have explored this factor more extensively in regards to motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution pursuant to Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).}{\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
See Lynn v. Chin Heung Int}{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 l, Inc.}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 , 852 F.2d 1221 (9}{
\super\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 th}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  Cir. 1988).}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 In }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Lynn}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
, the defendants sought dismissal for lack of prosecution by the plaintiff.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 852 F.2d at 1222.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The defendants based their
 arguments on a lack of plaintiff}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
s diligence in pursuing the case and lapse of time which resulted in prejudice to the defendants.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Id.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
The trial court agreed with the defendants}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
 contention that prejudice had resulted and granted the motion.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Id.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
The trial court found the defendant was prejudiced because it was unable to gather evidence or locate witnesses for trial because one of the defendants was no longer doing business in Guam.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Id.}{
\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Additionally, any witnesses who possessed first hand knowledge of the unavailable defendant}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s defense were not present on island and thus, beyond the reach of the court}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s process.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Id.}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  }{\insrsid10818281 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [13]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab The Plaintiff-Appellant similarly asser
ts that the passage of time has diminished the likelihood of recovery due to a decreasing chance of finding the principals involved in the case.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
The Plaintiff-Appellant also asserts that an offer to settle, and other opportunities provided by the court to avoid the entry of default and a default judgment, were ignored by the Defendant-Appellee.}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The argument that the Defendant-Appellee could easily have avoided the default judgment may be true; however, it does not, in and of itself, constitute evidence of prejudice to the Plaintiff-Appellant.}{\insrsid10818281  
}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The court considered}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 the delay}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 and}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 its possible}{
\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 ramifications, but}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 determined}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 that}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
the}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 possibility of prejudice resulting from delay was not sufficient to deny the Rule 60(b) motion.}{\cs15\super\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid15088945 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid15088945 In its Decision and Order, the tria
l court briefly stated that inherent in every case is the possibility of prejudice from delay; however, such is not sufficient to deny a Rule 60(b) motion.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid15088945 Midsea v. HK Engineering}{\fs20\insrsid15088945 
, CV0798-94 (Super. Ct. Guam Feb. 4, 1997).}}}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Instead, the court indicated that it would protect the Plaintiff-Appellant through other means.}{\cs15\super\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \chftn 
{\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid15088945 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid15088945 
In recognition that some hardship was suffered by the Plaintiff-Appellant, the trial court, accordingly, awarded the Plaintiff-Appellant attorney}{\fs20\insrsid15088945 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}
{\fs20\insrsid15088945 s fees for both the preparation for and attendance at the default hearings}{\insrsid15088945 .}}}{\insrsid10818281 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [14]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab Courts will normally make a determination of prejudice at the time when the defaulting party moves to set aside the default.}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Cribb v. Matlock Communications, Inc.}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 , 768 P.2d 337, 340 (Mont. 1989).}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
The facts of this case, however, do not present an issue as to the timeliness of the Defendant-Appellee}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s actions in moving to vacate the default judgment.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Although the question of whether prejudice to the plaintiff existed begs the analysis of the defendant}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
s conduct, the facts of this case warrant further review of the role the trial court played in creating prejudice to the Plaintiff.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
The time-line of events as they took place from the entry of the default judgment was entered until the time at which that judgment was set aside are as follows.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
The default judgment was entered against the Defendant-Appellee on March 9, 1995.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The Declara
tion and Order for Issuance of Writ of Execution and Order for Examination of Judgment Debtor were subsequently filed on June 21, 1995.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
On July 24, 1995, approximately one month later, the Defendant-Appellee filed a Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default and Default Judgment.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 We consider the Defendant-Appellee}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s filing of the Rule 55(c) and Rule 60(b) Motions to Set Aside to have been timely made.}{
\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 However, the hearing for the Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default and Default Judgment was not held by the trial court until April 16, 1996, nearly nine months after its filing.}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The Decision and Order was issued and filed ten month later on February 4, 1997.}{\insrsid10818281 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [15]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab We are empowered to interpret the local procedural rules of 
this jurisdiction, even those which are either identical to or closely coincident with the language of the Federal Rules.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Lynn}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 , 852 F.2d at 1223.}{
\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 We feel the record on appeal does not reflect that an adequate hearing on the determination of whether and wha
t prejudice existed, and what the cause of that prejudice might be. The concern of this court is the trial court}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s role in creating the additional delay beyond that which would be present in every Rule 60(b) case
 and the possibility that, as a result, the Plaintiff-Appellant would be prejudiced if the default judgment were set aside.}{\insrsid10818281 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [16]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab It is not enough for the Plaintiff-Appellant to say that lapse of time resulted in prejudice, but instead}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
there must be the presentation of evidence to support those}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 allegations.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
Nor is it sufficient for the Defendant-Appellee to sit back and claim that the delay in time was inconsequential and presume no prejudice resulted.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
Furthermore, the trial court as well does not have the 
luxury of merely citing a proposition of law that the possibility of prejudice exists in every Rule 60(b) case, present no analysis of whether any actual prejudice did exist and then summarily rule that it found no prejudice to the plaintiff would result 
if the default was vacated.}{\insrsid10818281  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [17]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab A full hearing on the issue}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 of}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 prejudice}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 must}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 occur,}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 including}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 the}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 presentation of}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 evidence,}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 be}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 that}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 in}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 the form of affidavits, deposition testimony or in court testimony, and a proper analysis and determination of whether prejudice existed must be conducted.}{
\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Only after such a hearing and analysis can this court determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in setting aside the Default Judgment.}{\insrsid10818281 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 CONCLUSION}{\b\insrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid10818281\charrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\b\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 [18]}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 \tab The court takes this opportunity, coupled with the }{\i\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Adams}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  case, to make a strong policy statement generally disfavoring default judgments and in favor of having cases heard on the merits.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Th
e trial court applied the proper analysis to the first two factors in a Rule 60(b) motion;}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 however, the facts in this case may present extenuating circumstances which would call for reversal.}{
\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 The trial court}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s role in creating prejudice,
}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
as a result of postponing and delaying the hearing of the Motion to Set Aside and the subsequent issuance of its decision, must be closely examined in order to determine whether the trial court erred in granting the Defendant-Appellee}{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s motion.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
The other two bases for setting aside the default judgment}{\insrsid10818281 -}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281  a lack of any meritorious defense and defendant}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 s culpable conduct,}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 are not at issue.}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 We}{\insrsid10818281  }{
\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 find}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 there is}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 no}{\insrsid10818281  }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 
question that the Defendant-Appellee raised a meritorious defense and that there was no culpable conduct of the Defendant-Appellee which led to either the Entry of Default or Default Judgment. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court 
and the trial judge who originally heard this matter for an evidentiary hearing on whether the action or inaction of the trial court caused the Plaintiff-Appellant sufficient prejudice to warrant a different decision.}{\insrsid10818281 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \fi-5040\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ, Associate Justice\tab \tab JANET HEALY WEEKS, Associate Justice}{\insrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-5040\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid10818281 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10818281 {\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 PETER C. SIGUENZA,}{\insrsid10818281 
\par }{\insrsid15088945\charrsid10818281 Chief Justice
\par }}