{\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;}{\f171\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f172\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f174\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f175\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f176\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f177\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f178\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f179\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}} {\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0; \red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\* \cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid9508377 \rsid10622434\rsid12338278\rsid13586646}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min1}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy20\hr10\min22}{\version3}{\edmins3}{\nofpages7}{\nofwords2614} {\nofchars14903}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws17483}{\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\rsidroot12338278 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12338278 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12338278 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12338278 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12338278 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid12338278\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \ql \fi-7920\li7920\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin7920\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \i\fs20\insrsid12338278 Merchant v. Nanyo Realty, Inc., }{\fs20\insrsid12338278 1998 Guam 26, Opinion \tab \tab \tab \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid12338278 PAGE }}{\fldrslt { \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid13586646 7}}}{\fs20\insrsid12338278 of 11 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid13586646 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1450\shptop1964\shpright10810\shpbottom1983\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypage\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn posrelv}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypage\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1450\dpy1964\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{ \fs20\insrsid12338278 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-720\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12338278 \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\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\b\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\b\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \ql \fi-5760\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 BOB MERCHANT,\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 )\tab }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Supreme Court No.}{\insrsid13586646\charrsid13586646 }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 CVA98-005 \par }{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab }{\insrsid13586646 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 )\tab }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Superior Court No. }{ \b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 CV1577-93 \par }\pard \ql \fi-2880\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Plaintiff-Appellant,}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab \tab )}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \par }\pard \ql \fi-4320\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid13586646\charrsid13586646 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 )}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \par }\pard \ql \fi-6480\li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin6480\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid13586646\charrsid13586646 \tab \tab }{\insrsid13586646 \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 vs.}{\insrsid13586646\charrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab )}{\insrsid13586646\charrsid13586646 }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab \tab \tab }{\b\insrsid13586646 }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 OPINION \par }\pard \ql \fi-4320\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\b\insrsid13586646 }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab }{\b\insrsid13586646 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 )}{ \b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \par NANYO REALTY, INC. and AQUA \tab }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 )}{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 WORLD MARINA, INC.}{\b\insrsid13586646 \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 )}{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \par }\pard \ql \fi-4320\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid13586646\charrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab }{\insrsid13586646\charrsid13586646 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 )}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \par }\pard \ql \fi-2880\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Defendants-Appellees.}{\insrsid13586646\charrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab )}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 ____________________________________}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 ) }{\insrsid13586646\charrsid13586646 \par }{\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Filed: December 2, 1998 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Cite as: }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 1998 Guam 26}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Argued and Submitted on 9 October 1998 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\ul\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Appearing for the Appellant:}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab \tab \tab \tab }{\ul\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Appearing for the Appellees: \par }\pard \ql \fi-5040\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 John R. White, Esq.\tab \tab \tab \tab \tab Philip D. Isaac, Esq. \par Attorney At Law \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab Carlsmith Ball Wichman Case & Ichiki \par Suite 302, Guam Memorial Park Building \tab \tab 134 West Soledad Avenue \par 230 West Soledad Avenue \tab \tab \tab \tab Bank of Hawaii Bldg., Suite 401 \par P.O. Box 2110 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab P.O. Box BF \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910 \tab \tab \tab \tab Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96932-5027 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid13586646 \par }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice; JANET HEALY WEEKS and JOAQUIN C. ARRIOLA, SR., Associate Justices. \par \par }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 WEEKS, J: \par }{\insrsid13586646\charrsid13586646 \par }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [1]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab Appellant Bob Merchant appeals from a judgment of dismissal upon Appellee}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s motion for reconsideration after the presentation of Merchant}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s case in chief.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 This case was originally filed before this court as CVA96-005, and was dismissed without prejudice in }{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Merchant v. Nanyo Realty Inc. and Aqua World Marina, Inc.}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 , 1997 Guam 16, for lack of jurisdiction, due to the absence of a separate document indicating a final judgment.}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Thereafter,}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 judgment was entered from the trial court and a timely Amended Notice of Appeal was filed.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Upon review, we express concern and dismay over the procedural and technical irregularities that occurred at the trial court level, but find that they were not so substantial as to overcome Merchant}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s failure to carry his burden in his case in chief.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 We thereby affirm the decision of the tria l court. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 I.}{\b\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\b\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [2]\tab }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Plaintiff-Appellant Bob Merchant (Merchant) owned a sailboat called the Islero which was moored in Apra Harbor, on property leased through Defendant-Appellee Aqua World Marina, Inc.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Sometime in 1991, Merchant removed three masts from his sailboat and stored them in a }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 haul-out}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 area outside the boundaries of the property that Merchant leased from Appellees.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 The masts were stored for approximately four to five months in an area where sword grass grew.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Sometime before July 1991, the management notified all tenants to clean up the area in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency regulations.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 The notice requested the tenants to re move their debris and personal belongings}{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 from the land at and around mooring spaces.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 It gave the tenants two weeks from the date of the notice to comply; thereafter, the management would have the items removed and either stored or disposed of at the owner}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s expense. }{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [3]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab On or about 12 July 1991, Merchant discovered that his masts were not where he had stored them.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 They were later found in the haul out area, broken up and lying in dirt and water.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Merchant found out later that the management had removed the masts with a front-end loader.}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Merchant subsequently sued Defendants-Appellees Nanyo Realty, Inc. and Aqua World Marina, Inc. for actual damages of $50,000 (the purported value of the masts)}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 and punitive damages.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Trial commenced on 20 May 1996.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 At the close of Merchant}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s case in chief, Appellees moved for judgment on the pleadings, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 The trial court then allowed Appellees two hours to prepare a written memorandum, and the motion was heard on that same day, 21 May 1996.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 After oral argument, the trial court denied Appellees}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 motion except for the claim of punitive damages, which was dismissed.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Because Appellees were given only two hours to prepare their written legal memorandum on the motion, the Appellees then requested reconsideration of the denial, to allow for the production of trial transcripts and to submit other case law.}{ \insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 The trial court granted the request and continued the trial for 24 June 1996.}{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [4]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab On 24 June 1996, Appellees submitted and argued their motion for reconsideration on the motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 T he court took the matter under advisement, and on 6 August 1996 granted Appellees}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 motion, on which date a Decision and Order was filed.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 An appeal was subsequently taken to this court wherein we dismissed without prejudice for lack of a final judgment or order.}{\insrsid13586646 } {\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 See}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 }{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Merchant v. Nanyo Realty, Inc.and Aqua World Marine, Inc., }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 1997 Guam 16.}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Thereafter, entry of Judgment of the trial court was made on 4 March 1998, and an Amended Notice of Appeal was timely filed on 31 March 1998 pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure for the Supreme Court of Guam.}{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }\pard \qc \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 II.}{\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [5]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 7 GCA }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 3107 and 3108 (1994).}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Merchant}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 assigns both procedural and substantive error to the trial court.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 He argues that the trial court procedurally erred by: (a) entertaining the motion to reconsider beyond the ten days as required under Guam R. Civ. P. 59(e), and (b) granting the motion for reconsideration when no new issues were raised.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Merchant further argues that the trial court substantively erred in its factual findings by: (a) ruling that Merchant had not established duty and breach of duty when Appellees expressly waived that argument; (b) ruling that replacement costs were not sufficient to meet Merchant}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s burden of proof on the issue of damages; (c) disregarding testimony that the masts were totally destroyed; and (d) ruling that testimony by Merchant}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s expert on mast repair quotations did not tie into the value of Merchant}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s masts.}{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 III.}{\ul\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\ul\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [6]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab Merchant submit s that the standard of review for a motion for reconsideration is from the erroneous application of}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 law and facts, and hence }{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 de novo.}{\i\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Appellees argue that the proper standard of review is for the trial court}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 We review for abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 See generally First Commercial Bank v McCord, }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 1996 WL 254334 *1 (D. Guam App. Div. May 8, 1996).}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Merchant argues that the motion for reconsideration was essentially a GRCP 59(e) motion,}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 a motion to alter or amend judgment, which is to be served not later than 10 days after entry of judgment.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Even though no entry of judgment was}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 docketed in this case, Merchant claims that such orders of dismissals are interlocutory and usually not docketed, and that the oral ruling of the court starts the clock running on the limitations period.}{ \insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Merchant cites}{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Iglesias v. Nissan Motor Corp. In Guam, }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 CV1823-95 (Super. Ct. Guam Oct. 22, 1996), where the trial court triggered the 10-day period for service of the motion for reconsideration from the date of the trial court}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s order on record, rather than formal entry of judgment on the docket.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Merchant asserts that the motion for reconsideration was untimely because the trial court denied Appellee}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s motion to dismiss on 21 May 1996, and the motion for reconsideration was filed and served on 24 June 1996.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Further, Merchant claims that the motion for reconsideration was substantively identical to the original motion and should not have been granted by the trial court.}{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [7]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab A motion for reconsideration may be either a Rule 59 motion or a Rule 60 motion.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 See U.S. v. Nutri-Cology, Inc., }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 982 F.2d 394, 396-97 (9}{\super\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 th}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Cir. 1992).}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 GRCP 59(e) provides:}{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 (e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.}{\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid13586646 \par }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 The notation of a judgment in the docket constitutes entry of the judgment.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 9 J}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 AMES}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 W}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 M}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 . M}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 OORE}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 ET AL.}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 , M}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 OORE}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 S}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 F}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 EDERAL}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 P}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 RACTICE}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 236.02 (2d ed. 1983).}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 No entry of judgment was ever docketed, so as to trigger the 10-day time period.}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 See Moodie v. Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y.}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 ,}{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 835 F.Supp. 751, 752 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (holding that a motion for reconsideration was inappropriate under the Federal Civil Rule governing amendment of judgments since no judgment was entered from which the motion to alter or amend could be based).}{ \insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Even if we were to use the oral ruling of the court as the date to start the running of the 10-day time period, the motion was served in excess of}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 30 days, and thus was untimely.}{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [8]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab Although the motion was untimely under Rule 59, we may construe the motion as one based on GRCP 60(b)(6).}{\insrsid13586646 }{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 See generally Straw v. Bowen, }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 866 F.2d 1167, 1172 (9}{\super\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 th}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Cir. 1989).}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 GRCP 60(b)(6) provides in relevant part:}{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Mistakes, Inadvertence, Excusable Neglect, Newly Discovered Evidence, Fraud, etc.}{\b\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: . . . }{\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 (6) any other reason justifying relief from operation of the judgment.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 The motion shall be made within a reasonable time. . .}{\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Appellees h ave argued that the transcript of proceedings not yet transcribed was needed for their motion for reconsideration, for which the trial court granted additional time.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Additional briefing was permitted to aid the trial court in its decision.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Although the motion for reconsideration was filed within a }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 reasonable}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 time under Rule 60(b)(6) (approximately 32 days after the oral ruling), the motion itself did not contain any information from the transcript of trial proceedings, for the transcript was at that time still unavailable for counsels}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 use.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Appellees}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 motion for reconsideration simply reiterated in greater detail the same arguments Appellees used in their original motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid13586646 \par }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [9]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab Courts use rule 60(b)(6) relief sparingly }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 and grant relief}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 only where extraordinary circ umstances prevent a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 U.S. v. Alpine Land & Reservoir, Co., }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9}{\super\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 th}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Cir. 1993).}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Awaiting the transcription of trial proceedings when both counsel were present during the trial does not rise to the level of }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 extraordinary circumstances}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 .}{ \insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Supplementing and further detailing previous arguments are not sufficient bases for reconsideration.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 The motion at issue is thus procedurally and substantively deficient under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)(6).}{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [10]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab Appellees argue that the motion for reconsideration was actually a renewed Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss, proffering that the substance of the motion should exalt over its form.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 See Colorado Nat. Bank of Denver v. Merlino,}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 668 P.2d 1304, 1307 (Wash.Ct.App. 1983) (holding that the court will measure the sufficiency of a motion by its content rather than technical format or its language); }{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Sea Ranch Ass}{ \i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 n v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Comm}{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 ns, }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9}{\super\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 th}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Cir. 1976) (holding that the nomenclature of a Rule 60(b) motion does not prevent it from treatment as a 59(e) motion, since it was filed within the 10-day period set by rule).}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Under Rule 41(b), in an action tried by the court without a jury, the court as the trier of facts may determine and render judgment against the plaintiff after presentation of plaintiff}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s evidence and upon motion for dismissal by the defendant, upon the ground that plaintiff}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 has shown no right to relief upon the facts and the law. GRCP 41(b).}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 The court may also decline to render any judgment until the close of}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 all evidence.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Id}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 .}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Here, the court initially rendered judgment denying Appellees}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Rule 41(b) mo tion to dismiss, except as to the punitive damages, and then allowed Appellees time for further briefing, rather than proceeding with the trial and then entertaining the motion again at the close of all the evidence.}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Having denied the motion to dismiss on record, the trial court should have properly resumed the trial with the presentation of Defendants}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 -Appellees}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 case.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Appellees could have then moved the court for dismissal at the close of all the evidence, or the trial court could have dismissed }{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 sua sponte}{ \insrsid13586646 . \par \par }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [11]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab We believe that the underlying intent of the trial court in this case was to make a final decision with the aid of counsel}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s written arguments, despite its earlier oral ruling.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Based upon our analysis}{ \i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 ,}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 we do not view this as a motion for reconsideration.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Neither do we believe that the trial court}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s actions constitute reversible error.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Although we do not encourage or condone the procedural and technical irregularities that occurred in the case at bar, we are of the opinion that the trial court in this case ultimately reached a sound conclusion.}{\i\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [12]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab Dismissal for insufficiency of the evidence is a final judgment, adverse to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff may appeal.}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 9 C}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 HARLES}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 A}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 LAN}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 W}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 RIGHT}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 & A}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 RTHUR}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 R. M}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 ILLER}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 , F}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 EDERAL}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 P}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 RACTICE}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 AND}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 P}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 ROCEDURE: }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Civil 2d }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 2376 (West 1995).}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Factual findings made pursuant to a motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiff}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s case in an nonjury case are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Johnson v. U.S. Postal Service,}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 7 56 F.2d 1461, 1464 (1985)(citation omitted).}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 A finding is clearly erroneous where, even though some evidence supports it, the entire record produces the definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a mistake.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Aguon v. Taijeron, }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 1983 WL 30217 *2 (D. Guam Ap. Div. Dec. 13, 1983)(citation omitted), }{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 aff}{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 d }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 758 F.2d 655 (9}{\super\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 th}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Cir. 1985).}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 We review under the clearly erroneous standard.}{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [13]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab Merchant argues that the trial court erred in its factual find ings; to wit, that Merchant had not established duty and breach of duty, that replacement costs were not the measure of damages, by disregarding testimony that the masts were totally destroyed, and by ruling that testimony of Merchant}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s expert on mast repair quotations did not tie into the value of Merchant}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s masts.}{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [14]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab To succeed on a claim of negligence, Merchant must prove:}{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 i.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 A duty, or obligation, r ecognized by law, requiring the person to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm;}{\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 ii.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 A breach of that duty, or failure to conform to the required standard;}{ \insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 iii.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Proximate cause (a close and causal connection, also known as }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 legal cause}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 );}{\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 iv.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Actual loss or damage resulting to the interests of another.}{\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid13586646 \par }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 W. P}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 AGE}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 K}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 EETON, ET AL.}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 , P}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 ROSSER AND}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 K}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 EETON ON THE}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 L}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 AW OF}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 T}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 ORTS}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 30 (West 5th ed. 1984).}{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [15]\tab }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Merchant never succeeds beyond the first element of the negligence claim; that is, a duty owed to Merchant by Appellees.}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 There is no proof in the record that Appellees owed Merchant any duty, thus obviating any breach of duty.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Although Merchant states that Appellees waived the duty element, a review of the record indicates that Appellees, in their argument to the court, conceded the duty ele ment for purposes of the motion to dismiss only, to make the point that even if duty were established, Merchant could not prove damages. }{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [16]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab Merchant argues that damages should be measured by the replacement cost of the masts, since there was testimony that the masts were totally destroyed.}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 He submits he provided all practical evidence to the court, absent any evidence of the value of the masts before the incident.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 His expert witness, Ken D}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Amassa, testified as to the replacement value of the masts.}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Merchant contends that evidence in the form of a repair bill standing alone and unassailed is not only probative evidence of the difference in fair market value of personal property, it is suffic ient to sustain a verdict for damage to same. }{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 See}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 }{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 McCarty v. Hall, }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 697 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Ky.Ct.App. 1985).}{ \insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Given that the masts could not be repaired, Merchant argues that the measure of damages is replacement of the masts, which, in Merchant}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s opinion, is equal to the cost of the repair of the vessel.}{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [17]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab The trial court found that damages were measured by the diminution in value of the}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 property, which would be the difference in the fair market value of the property before and after the accident.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 See Stevens v. F/V Bonnie Doon,}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 731 F.2d 1433 (9}{ \super\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 th}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Cir. 1984).}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 The court found that Merchant had not offered evidence as to what the masts were worth before the incident, what condition the masts were in at that time, nor what type of material the masts were made of.}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Further, Merchant}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s expert on repair quotations could not show how the cost estimate of the new masts related to the value of Merchant}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s own masts.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 The trial court reasoned that because there was no evidence presented to the court as to what the masts were worth prior to the incident (for the masts may have been worthless), the court could not take i nto account in its decision the evidence suggesting that the damage was total.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 It therefore could not determine what amount of damage Merchant suffered, nor whether Merchant was even damaged at all.}{ \insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 We concur}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 with the reasoning of the trial court.}{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }{\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [18]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab In the interests of judicial time and economy, rather than to permit Appellees to present their case and to arrive at the same conclusion, the trial court granted Appellees }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 motion for reconsideration}{\i\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 .}{\insrsid13586646 }{ \insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 We cannot say that the trial court clearly erred in its factual findings, despite the procedural and technical irregularities surrounding the motion.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Merchant chose to rest his case on evidence lacking the sufficiency to carry his burden on the negligence claim; i.e., any showing of duty, the breach of duty, and damages.}{\insrsid13586646 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 IV.}{\b\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\b\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\b\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 [19]}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab Although we noted procedural and technical irregularities at the trial court level, it is our view that these irregularities do not rise to the level of substantively overcoming Merchant}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 s failure to prevail on his negligence claim in his case in chief.}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 We therefore AFFIRM the motion to dismiss in favor of Appellees. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 PETER C. SIGUENZA \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 Chief Justice}{\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid13586646 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13586646 {\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 JANET HEALY WEEKS\tab \tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 JOAQUIN C. ARRIOLA \par Associate Justice}{\insrsid13586646 }{\insrsid12338278\charrsid13586646 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab Associate Justice \par }}