{\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\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202030204}WP Phonetic{\*\falt Courier New};}{\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;\red255\green255\blue255;}{\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 \rsid160217
\rsid2566445\rsid4743470\rsid7999608\rsid9378256\rsid9508377\rsid14225152}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min1}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy20\hr13\min49}{\version6}{\edmins5}
{\nofpages6}{\nofwords2485}{\nofchars14171}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws16623}{\vern16391}}\margl2160\margr720\margb720 
\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\rsidroot2566445 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2566445 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2566445 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2566445 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2566445 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid2566445\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qr \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\pvpara\posx0\posy0\absw9361\nowrap\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\fs20\insrsid2566445 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 80 \\f "WP Phonetic" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f171\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2566445 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 97 \\f "WP Phonetic" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f171\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2566445 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 103 \\f 
"WP Phonetic" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f171\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2566445 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 101 \\f "WP Phonetic" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f171\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2566445 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 32 \\f "WP Phonetic" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f171\fs20}}}
{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid2566445 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid14225152 1}}}{\fs20\insrsid2566445 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 32 \\f "WP Phonetic" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f171\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2566445 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 111 \\f "WP Phonetic" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f171\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2566445 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 102 \\f "WP Phonetic" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f171\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2566445 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 32 \\f "WP Phonetic" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f171\fs20}}
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 32 \\f "WP Phonetic" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f171\fs20}}}{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid2566445 NUMPAGES }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid7999608 2}}}{\fs20\insrsid2566445 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid14225152 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft-720\shptop0\shpright8640\shpbottom13680\shpfhdr1\shpbxmargin\shpbxignore\shpbymargin\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn lTxid}{\sv 65536}}{\sp{\sn dxTextLeft}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn dyTextTop}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn dxTextRight}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn dyTextBottom}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelv}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\shptxt \trowd \ts11\trleft-1080\trftsWidth1 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone 
\clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1528\clshdrawnil \cellx448\pard\plain \qr \li0\ri0\sl-476\slmult0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2566445 1
\par 2
\par 3
\par 4
\par 5
\par 6
\par 7
\par 8
\par 9
\par 10
\par 11
\par 12
\par 13
\par 14
\par 15
\par 16
\par 17
\par 18
\par 19
\par 20
\par 21
\par 22
\par 23
\par 24
\par 25
\par 26
\par 27
\par 28\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid2566445 \trowd \ts11\trleft-1080\trftsWidth1 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1528\clshdrawnil \cellx448\row }}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxmargin\dobymargin\dodhgt0\dptxbx\dptxlrtb{\dptxbxtext\trowd \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidth1 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1528\clshdrawnil \cellx448\pard\plain \qr \li0\ri0\sl-476\slmult0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2566445 1
\par 2
\par 3
\par 4
\par 5
\par 6
\par 7
\par 8
\par 9
\par 10
\par 11
\par 12
\par 13
\par 14
\par 15
\par 16
\par 17
\par 18
\par 19
\par 20
\par 21
\par 22
\par 23
\par 24
\par 25
\par 26
\par 27
\par 28\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid2566445 \trowd \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidth1 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1528\clshdrawnil \cellx448\row }}\dpx-720\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize13680\dpfillfgcr255\dpfillfgcg255\dpfillfgcb255\dpfillbgcr255\dpfillbgcg255\dpfillbgcb255\dpfillpat0\dplinehollow}}}}{\fs20\insrsid2566445 
GEDA and GVB v. Island Equipment Co., Inc., et al.,  CVA97-030, Opinion\tab 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid14225152 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft2160\shptop0\shpright11520\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz1\shplockanchor\shplid2050{\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 fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}
{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt1\dprect\dpx2160\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\fs20\insrsid2566445 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-291\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid2566445 
\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\pararsid160217 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\b\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\b\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 GUAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT}{\b\insrsid160217 \tab }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 )}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 
\par }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 AUTHORITY and GUAM VISITORS}{\b\insrsid160217 \tab }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 )
\par }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 BUREAU,}{\b\insrsid160217 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid160217\charrsid4743470 )}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0\pararsid160217 {\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid160217 {\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 Movants-Appellants,}{\insrsid4743470 \tab }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0\pararsid160217 {\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid160217 {\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 vs.}{\insrsid160217\charrsid4743470 \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0\pararsid160217 {\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi-5040\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0\pararsid160217 {\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 ISLAND EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.,}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 )\tab SUPREME CT. CASE NO. }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
CVA97-030}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0\pararsid160217 {\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 )}{\b\insrsid4743470 \tab }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 SUPERIOR CT. CASE NO.}{\b\insrsid4743470  }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
CV0323-94
\par }\pard \qj \fi-3600\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0\pararsid160217 {\insrsid2566445\charrsid14225152 Plaintiff-Appellee;}{\insrsid160217\charrsid14225152 \tab }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid14225152 \tab }{
\insrsid160217\charrsid14225152 )}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid14225152 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-3600\li7920\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin7920\itap0\pararsid14225152 {\insrsid160217\charrsid4743470 )}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 CUISINE INTERNATIONAL, INC., dba\tab }{\insrsid160217\charrsid4743470 )}{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-8640\li8640\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin8640\itap0\pararsid160217 {\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 SEAFOOD MARKET and ROMEO S. GO,}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 )}{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab OPINION}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0\pararsid160217 {\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 Defendants-Appellees.\tab )
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4743470 {\b\insrsid4743470 ____________________________________}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 )}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid4743470 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\insrsid7999608\charrsid4743470 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4743470 {\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Filed May 28, 1998}{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-7200\li7200\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin7200\itap0\pararsid4743470 {\insrsid4743470 
\par }\pard \qc \fi-7200\li7200\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin7200\itap0\pararsid4743470 {\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 Cite as: 1998 Guam 7
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4743470 {\insrsid4743470 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4743470 {\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on 12 December 1997
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\ul\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Appearing for Movants-Appellants:}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
\par F. Randall Cunliffe, Esq.
\par CUNLIFFE & COOK
\par Suite 200, 210 Archbishop Flores Street
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910
\par 
\par }{\ul\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellee:}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
\par Daniel J. Berman, Esq.
\par BERMAN O}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 CONNOR & MANN
\par Suite 503, Bank of Guam Building
\par 111 Chalan Santo Papa
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910
\par 
\par }{\ul\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Appearing for the Amicus Curiae:}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
\par Kenneth D. Orcutt, Assistant Attorney General
\par Office of the Attorney General
\par Suite 2-200E, Judicial Center Building
\par 120 West O}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Brien Drive
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910}{\insrsid2566445 
\par }{\insrsid4743470\charrsid160217 
\par }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice; JANET HEALY WEEKS,}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Associate Justice; and}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
JOSE I. LEON GUERRERO, Associate Justice.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 WEEKS, J.:
\par }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
\par }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [1]}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab Appellants Guam Economic Development Authority (}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 GEDA}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 ) and the Guam Visitor}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 s Bureau (}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 GVB}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
) are appealing an order which denied their Motion to Quash a writ of execution.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 The trial court ordered GEDA and GVB to pay over monies owed}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 RSG Philippines, Inc. (}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 RSG}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 ) to the Office of the Marshal for the Superior Court of Guam.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
The monies were to satisfy a judgment entered against RSG}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 s alter ego, Judgment-Debtor Romeo S. Go (}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Go}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 ) in favor of Plaintiff Island Equipment Company, Inc. (}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Island Equipment}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 ).}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 This Court finds that the trial court properly granted the writ of execution, and we hereby affirm the trial court}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 s ruling.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 I.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4743470 {\insrsid4743470\charrsid160217 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [2]}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab 
Plaintiff-Appellee Island Equipment filed a complaint for money damages against Defendants Cuisine International, Inc. and Romeo S. Go.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
Island Equipment obtained a consent judgment on 23 September 1994 and began enforcing the judgment against Cuisine International, Inc. and Go.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
Island Equipment conducted depositions upon representatives from GEDA and GVB.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 In the course of such 
depositions, Island Equipment discovered that GEDA and GVB had entered into a Liaison Office and Marketing Representation Agreement (}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Liaison Agreement}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 ) with RSG Phili
ppines on 1 April 1996. The agreement provided that RSG would receive a monthly retainer of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for its liaison and marketing services in the Philippines for the term of the agreement.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Go is the president of RSG. On 9 September 1996,}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Island Equipment obtained a writ of execution against Go and/or RSG Philippines, Inc.}{
\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 GEDA, GVB and the Department of Administration for the Government of Guam were served a Notice of Levy and Attachment and were ordered to deliver any payments owed 
RSG or Romeo S. Go to the Marshal of the Superior Court of Guam.}{\insrsid4743470 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [3]}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab GEDA and GVB moved to quash the writ.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 GEDA and GVB admitted to owing money to RSG, but denied owing money to Go.}
{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 The Department of Administration did not join in the motion to quash the writ of execution.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
Neither RSG nor Go supported the motion to quash.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 On 10 June 1997 the trial court denied the motion to quash.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
The court determined that the execution laws did not preclude attachment or garnishment where a government agency is a creditor of the judgment debtor.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
Furthermore, the court ruled that RSG is the alter ego of Romeo S. Go and that the issuance of a Writ of Execution upon the contract between RSG and GEDA and GVB was proper.}{\insrsid4743470 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 II.}{\b\insrsid4743470\charrsid4743470 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4743470 {\insrsid4743470 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [4]}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab This Court has jurisdiction over the order pursuant to 7 GCA }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  25102 (1993), and 7 GCA }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  3107 and 3108 (1994).}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Whether GEDA
 and GVB are exempt from the execution statutes is a question of law which this Court will review }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 de novo}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 .}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
Camacho v. Camacho}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 , 1997 Guam 5, }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
24 (reviewing questions of law de novo).}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Whether the alter ego doctrine can be used to require GEDA and GVB to pay over monies owed to RSG to Romeo S. Go}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 s judgment creditor is also a question of law which this Court reviews }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 de novo}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 .}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Wolfe v. United States}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 , 798 F.2d 1241, 1243 n.1 (9}{\super\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 th}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Cir. 1986).}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 However, whether RSG is the alter ego of Romeo S. Go is a factual determination which is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.}{
\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Id. }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 at}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 n.2.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
We address these questions in turn.}{\insrsid4743470 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 III.}{\b\insrsid4743470\charrsid4743470 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\insrsid4743470 
\par }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [5]}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab Appellants GEDA and GVB, as well as the amicus curiae,}{\cs15\super\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\sl214\slmult1
\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2566445 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2566445 
It is unclear why the Office of the Attorney General as amicus curiae for Appellants waited until the issues contained herein were presented upon appeal.  The Department of Administration was named in the Notice of Levy and Attachment and serv
ed with the appropriate documents.}}}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
argue the general principle that government agencies are not subject to the laws executing judgments (i.e., attachment and garnishment) because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. This viewpoint assumes without suppor
t that GEDA and GVB are public entities entitled to the full protection of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. }{\insrsid4743470 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [6]}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab There is no doubt that the doctrine of sovereign immunity applies to Guam.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Marx v. Government of Guam}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 , 866 F.2d 294, 298 (9}{\super\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 th}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  Cir. 1989).}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
The Organic Act of Guam allows Guam to sue and be sued, upon any contract or upon a tort committed in the exercise of any of its lawful powers. 48 U.S.C. }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 1421(a) (1987).}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 However, such suit is permitted only upon the consent of the legislature as evidenced by duly enacted law.}{
\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Id.}{\insrsid4743470  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
In the present case we need not reach the issue of whether a governmental instrumentality may be subjected to the general laws regarding the execution of judgments because, as Appellee 
points out, neither GEDA nor GVB is a governmental entity extended the protection of the sovereign immunity doctrine. Appellant has failed to address either }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Laguana v. Guam Visitor}{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 s Bureau}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  725 F.2d 519 (9}{\super\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 th}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
 Cir. 1984) or }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Bordallo v. Reyes}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 , 763 F.2d 1098 (9}{\super\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 th}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  Cir. 1985).}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Both cases stand for the proposition that GVB is not a governmental entity and suggest that GEDA falls in the same category.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Laguana, }{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 725 F.2d at 521; }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Bordallo,}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  763 F.2d at 1103.}{\insrsid4743470 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [7]}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab In }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Laguana,}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  
the GVB argued that their employees are not public employees afforded protection from patronage dismissals.}{\cs15\super\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 2{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2566445 2}{\fs20\insrsid2566445 The Court notes GVB}{\fs20\insrsid2566445 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid2566445 s dual status attempt: GVB seeks sovereign immunity protection here, but shuns public entity status when it requires civil service protection for its employees.}}}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Id.
}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  at 520.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 The Ninth Circuit determined that when the Guam Legislature created th
e GVB as a non-profit corporation, it did not make it a public entity and thus its employees are not considered public employees.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Id.}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
 at 521. The Guam Legislature then amended the legal status of the GVB, indicating that it would be a public corporation instead of a non-profit corporation.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 See}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  Guam Pub. L. No.17-32 (Nov. 22, 1983).}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Subsequent to the enactment of}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
Pub. L. No. 17-32, the Ninth Circuit, in }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Bordallo, }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 once again found that the GVB, despite its legal status as a public corporation, was not an instrumentality of the government.}{
\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Bordallo, }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 763 F.2d at 1103.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the Legislature created certain public corporations and designated them as instrumentalities of the government, specifically, the}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
Guam Airport Authority, the Guam Telephone Authority, the Guam Power Authority and the Port Authority of Guam, while other public corporations were not designated as instrumentalities of the government, e.g., GVB and GEDA.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217 
 }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Id.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 From the reasoning of }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Laguana }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 and}{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  Bordallo}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 , GEDA, as well, should be treated as a public corporation, but not an instrumentality of the government.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 See also}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  12 GCA }
{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  50101 (1994).}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
Neither GEDA nor GVB is an instrumentality of the government exercising governmental functions. }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 See Home Owners}{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  Loan Corp. v. Hardie & Caudle}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 , 100 S.W. 2d 238,}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
239 (Tenn. 1936) (holding that the government could not abandon its assumed character and seek immunity under the cloak of government where the sov
ereign divested itself of the attributes of government and descended to the level of a trafficker in private affairs under the guise of a public corporation).}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid4743470 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [8]}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab But even if it were assumed that GEDA and GVB are public entities performing governmental fu
nctions, the Guam Legislature has waived the doctrine of sovereign immunity by granting both public corporations the right to sue and be sued.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 12 GCA }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  50104(d) (1994)(GEDA shall have the right to sue and be sued); 12 GCA }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  9105(c) (1993) (GVB shall have the power to }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [s]ue or be sued in its own corporate name.}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 ).}{
\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 The plain meaning of these provisions is clear and should be used }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 in their usual and ordinary sense.}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
Fed. Hous. Admin. v. Burr}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 , 309 U.S. 242, 246, 60 S.Ct. 488, 491 (1940).}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 In }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Burr,}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
 the U.S. Supreme Court set forth a presumption that the power to }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 sue and be sued}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  encompassed all civil processes and gave the federal corporation the 
same legal status as a private enterprise.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 309 U.S. at 245. 60 S.Ct. at 490}{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 .}{\i\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
The Supreme Court determined that such a presumption can only be overcome by a }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 grave interference}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  with a government function.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Id.}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  at 492.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 The Court further added: }{\insrsid4743470 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid160217 {\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
[C]onsiderations of convenience, cost and efficiency which have been urged here are for Congress which, as we have said, has full authority to make such restrictions on the }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 sue and be sued}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
 clause as seem to it appropriate or necessary.}{\insrsid4743470 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\insrsid4743470 
\par }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Id.}{\i\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has since held that when Congress created the United States Postal Ser
vice, and vested such Service with the right to }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 sue and be sued,}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  there were no limitations placed on such power to sue and be sued relating to garnishment proceedings
 and that the USPS could not therefore quash a garnishment proceeding.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 May Dept. Stores Co. v. Williamson}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 , 549 F.2d 1147, 1148 (8}{
\super\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 th}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  Cir. 1977); }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 see also}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Standard Oil v. Starks}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
, 528 F.2d 201, 204 (7}{\super\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 th}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  Cir. 1975) (holding that the USPS is not immune to garnishment procedures to effect judgment in state courts).}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 The Eighth Circuit}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
acknowledged that the Federal Torts Claims Act applied to the USPS and was a limitation on the power to sue and be sued, but indicated that the act providing for the USPS was }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 silent as to garnishment.}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Williamson}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 , 549 F.2d at 1149.}{\insrsid4743470 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [9]}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab In the present case, GEDA and GVB are non-governmental entities and the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Furthermore,}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 the Guam Legislature has afforded both GEDA and GVB the right to sue and be sued.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 12 GCA }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  50104(d) and 9105(c).}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
While the Guam Legislature restricted suits against GEDA and GVB by making the Government Claims Act applicable to those public corporations, the Guam Legislature did not provide for a specific restriction dealing with garnishments.}{
\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 See Burr,}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
 309 U.S. at 247, 60 S.Ct. at 491 (presumption against restrictions on right to sue and be sued absent a proviso prohibiting garnishment and attachment); }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 see also Williamson,}{\i\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 549 F.2d 1149 (applicability of federal tort claim act to USPS, with no express restriction against garnishment proceedings permits USPS to be subject to garnishment).}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 This Court therefore finds that GEDA and GVB may be subject to garnishment proceedings. }{\insrsid4743470 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [10]}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab The remaining issue involves the trial court}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 s determination that RSG was the alter ego of the Debtor-Defendant Romeo S. Go.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
But a preliminary question must first be answered. The Appellants contend that the trial court lacked the statutory authority to order the execution of the monies owed RSG because the Appellants denied the debt.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 7 GCA }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  23204 (1994).}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 While Appellants GEDA}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 and GVB as garnishees have denied owing money to Defendant Romeo S. Go, they have not denied owing money to the corporation RSG.}{
\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 In fact, no party disputes the existence of a contractual relationship between RSG and Appellants. They contend that, pursuant to 7 GCA }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  23205 (1994),}{\cs15\super\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 3{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2566445 3}{\b\fs20\insrsid2566445 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\b\fs20\insrsid2566445  23205.}{\fs20\insrsid2566445  }{
\b\fs20\insrsid2566445 Proceedings Upon Claim of Another Party.  }{\fs20\insrsid2566445 If it appears that a person or corporation, alleged to
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid2566445 
have property of the judgment debtor, or to be indebted to him, claims an interest in the property adverse to him, or denies the debt, the judgment creditor may maintain an action against such person or corporation for the recovery of such interest or deb
t
, and the judge or referee may, by order, forbid a transfer or other disposition of such interest or debt, until an action can be commenced and prosecuted to judgment.  Such order may be modified or vacated by the judge or referee granting the same or the
 court in which the action is brought, at any time, upon such terms as may be just.   }{\b\fs20\insrsid2566445   }}}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
the most the Court could have done was to enjoin the transfer of the monies until the judgment creditor could commence and prosecute to final judgment an action to establish the existence of the debt.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 We are not persuaded by Appellants}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
 arguments that a separate action to determine the alter ego issue was necessary.}{\cs15\super\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 4{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2566445 4}{\fs20\insrsid2566445 Appellants cite }{\i\fs20\insrsid2566445 Thomas v. Thomas, }{\fs20\insrsid2566445 192 Cal.App.2d 771, 13 Cal.Rptr. 872 (Cal.Dist.Ct.App. 1961), }{
\i\fs20\insrsid2566445 Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Bank of Italy, }{\fs20\insrsid2566445 216 Cal. 452, 14 P.2d 527 (Cal.Dist.Ct.App. 1932), }{\i\fs20\insrsid2566445 Staniels v.Copeland, }{\fs20\insrsid2566445 
48 Cal.App.2d 124, 119 P.2d 396 (Cal.Dist.Ct.App. 1941) and others as authorities for their position.  
 While we find these cases to have merit,  none deals with the issue of alter ego at a garnishment proceeding or at an independent action to the garnishment proceeding   We view these cases as instructive but not persuasive to the case at bar.  }{
\i\fs20\insrsid2566445    }}}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Instead, we find support in }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Valley Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Gonzales, }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 894}{
\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 S.W.2d}{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 832 (Tex.App. 1995), where the court made an alter ego finding at a garnishment hearing.}{
\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Here, where Appellants deny the debt to the defendant but not to its alleged alter eg
o, we find that the trial court appropriately handled the alter ego issue before it without the necessity of a separate action.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 We are further persuaded by Appellee}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 s argument that }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
a denial of indebtedness by a garnishee will not prevent the court from ordering that the money be applied to the satisfaction of a judgment, where other admissions and averments of the garnishee confess the debt}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 .}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 19 Cal. Jur.2d }{\ul\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Executions}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 , }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  221 (1969), }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 citing Finch v. Finch, 
}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 12 Cal.App. 274, 107 P. 594, 598 (Cal.Dist.Ct.App.1909).}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 In }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Finch,}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
 the court found that the trial court was not bound by the garnishee}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
s denial of the debt if the facts show that the debt existed at the time of service of the writ, and that it was not sufficient to divest the c
ourt of jurisdiction to order the garnishee to pay the debt where the denial of indebtedness by the garnishee was shown by other averments and admissions to be an erroneous conclusion.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
Id. }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 at 596.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 We agree with the reasoning in }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Finch.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
In the instant case, 
where the Appellee has furnished such evidence in the nature of depositions and correspondence, and the Appellants have admitted a contractual relationship with the alleged alter ego RSG, we believe the trial court acted within its authority in determinin
g the issue of alter ego in this execution proceeding.}{\insrsid4743470 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [11]}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab The final remaining issue is whether RSG is the alter ego of Romeo S. Go.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
The alter ego doctrine is applicable where the trial court determines, }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 (1) t
hat there is such a unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist and (2) that failure to disregard the corporation would result in fraud or injustice.}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Associated Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Guam Int}{
\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 l Insurers, Inc., }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Civ. No. 90-00059A (D. Guam App. Div.1991).}{
\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Fraudulent intent is also a factor to consider.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Id.}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid4743470 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [12]}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab The court found the following f
acts in support of such a conclusion: (1) RSG is incorporated for the sole purpose of the sale of bakery goods and has not filed a corporate report in the last ten (10) years; (2) RSG is not licensed or permitted to do business on Guam or the City of Mani
l
a in the Philippines; (3) the judgment debtor requested that payments to RSG be made into the personal accounts of Romeo S. Go; (4) there is no corporate office for RSG, and its corporate address is the personal residence of Romeo S. Go; (5) Go is the pre
sident of RSG. Additional evidence from the record demonstrates that the Liaison Contract between GEDA and GVB was entered on 1 April 1996, after the judgment was secured against Romeo S. Go.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 RSG was incorporated for the purpose of manufacturing baked goods.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
Yet the purpose of the Liaison Contract was not to manufacture baked goods, but to expand the tourism industry and to encourage business development on Guam. The trial court determined that piercing the corporate veil was necessary to avoid a grave injus
tice and to prevent a fraud.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid4743470 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [13]}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab The facts above support the conclusion that there is no separate identity between RSG and Romeo S. Go, and the trial court}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 s finding that RSG is the alter ego of Romeo S. Go is not clearly erroneous.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
As a procedural matter, alter ego findings can be made in a garnishment proceeding.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 See Valley Mechanical Contractors}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 , 894 S.W.2d at 832.}{
\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 The trial court could have even gone further and amended the judgment to identify RSG as a judgment debtor.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 See}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  }{\i\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Associated Ins. Underwriters,}{\i\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Civ. No. 90-00059A at 6.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Both Romeo S. Go and RSG had an opportunity to oppose the piercing of the corporate veil at the garnishment proceedings. }{\insrsid4743470 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid4743470 CONCLUSION}{\b\insrsid4743470\charrsid4743470 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4743470 {\insrsid4743470 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [14]}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab 
The trial court properly ruled that GEDA and GVB are not governmental agencies protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Additionally,}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 the Guam Legislature has vested both GEDA and GVB with the power to sue and be sued.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 Without language ex
pressly limiting such a general waiver of immunity, this Court cannot impute limitations. There is also no statutory restriction against garnishment proc}{\insrsid4743470 eedings involving GEDA and GVB.
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [15]}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab Furthermore, we find that the trial court was within its authorit
y in making its determination on the alter ego issue at the execution hearing, and that no separate action to establish the existence of such a debt was necessary under 7 GCA }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217  23205.}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 The court could properly ord
er the satisfaction of the judgment with the monies held by garnishees GEDA and GVB which were due and owing to RSG.}{\insrsid4743470 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 [16]}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 \tab Finally, a garnishment proceeding is a proper vehicle to determine the alter ego status of the judgment debtor. This Court agrees with the trial court}{
\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 s ruling that RSG was the alter ego of Romeo S. Go, and the order a}{\insrsid14225152 
ppealed from below is AFFIRMED.}{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4743470 {\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 JOSE I. LEON GUERRERO, Associate Justice}{\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217  }{\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 JANET HEALY WEEKS, Associate Justice}{
\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid160217 {\insrsid7999608\charrsid160217 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4743470 {\insrsid2566445\charrsid160217 PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice
\par }}