{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;} {\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f169\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f170\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;} {\f172\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f173\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f174\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f175\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);} {\f176\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f177\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\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 \rsid1058986 \rsid2384294\rsid5259515\rsid9202399\rsid9508377}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min2}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy14\hr9\min48}{\version4} {\edmins1}{\nofpages7}{\nofwords2388}{\nofchars13612}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws15969}{\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\rsidroot2384294 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2384294 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2384294 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2384294 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2384294 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid2384294\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid2384294 Parkland Dev., Inc. v. Anderson}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 , 2000 Guam 8, Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid2384294 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid5259515 7}}}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 of 10 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid5259515 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1425\shptop1926\shpright10785\shpbottom1936\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\dpx1425\dpy1926\dpxsize9360\dpysize10\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{ \fs20\insrsid2384294 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid2384294 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. \par }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Plaintiff-Appellee}{\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 vs.}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 JOAQUIN B. ANDERSON and MYRT ANDERSON \par }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Defendants-Appellants}{\ul\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\ul\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Supreme Court Case No.:CVA98-004 \par Superior Court Case No.:CV1465-95}{\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 OPINION}{\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Filed: January 27, 2000}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Cite as: 2000 Guam 8}{\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par Submitted on the briefs, April 19, 1999 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid5259515 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \par }{\ul\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Representing the Plaintiff-Appellee:}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \tab \par Anita P. Arriola, Esq. \par Arriola, Cowan & Arriola \par 259 Martyr St., Ste. 201 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell \par }{\ul\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Representing the Defendants-Appellants:}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \par Wilfred R. Mann, Esq. \par Berman O}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Connor & Mann \par Suite 503, Bank of Guam Bldg. \par 111 Chalan Santo Papa \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid5259515 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt \brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid5259515 \par }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 BEFORE: BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ, Chief Justice; PETER C. SIGUENZA, Associate Justice, and RICHARD H.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 BENSON, Designated Justice.}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \par }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \par }{\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 SIGUENZA, J.: \par }{\insrsid5259515\charrsid5259515 \par }{\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [1]}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \tab Joaquin B. Anderson and Myrt Anderson, appeal this matter based upon the trial court}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s denial of their Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The motion was filed subsequent to a judgment rendered aga inst the Andersons at the close of a five-day trial in the Superior Court.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Examining the trial court}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s decision, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Appellant}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s motion below; accordingly, its decision is affirmed.}{ \b\ul\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND }{\b\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid5259515\charrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [2]\tab }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 This case arose out of a Development Management Agreement (DMA) which was entered into on March 20, 1989 by Defendants-Appellants Joaquin B. Anderson and Myrt Anderson (hereinafter the }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Andersons}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 ) and Advance Development Corporation (hereinafter }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 ADC}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 )for the development of the Andersons}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 property}{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 67 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Lot No. 3251-1-2, Chalan Pago, Pago, Guam.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The project was divided into three phases of development.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Phase I}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 involved the construction of eleven (11) single family dwellings (hereinafter }{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 SFDs}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 )}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 and required the Andersons to pre-sell the units before the developers became obligated to begin construction.}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 On June 14, 1989, ADC assigned its rights in the project to Plaintiff-Appellee Parkland Development, Inc. (hereinafter }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Parkland}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 ).}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 On July 17, 1989, the parties entered into a Modification Agreement wherein Parkland agreed to purchase eight (8) of the SFDs because the Andersons were unable to pre-sell the units.}{\insrsid5259515 \par \par }{\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [3]}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \tab Construction on Phase I commenced in 1990; however, disputes between the parties arose and were submitted to arbitration.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 An Arbitration Award was issued on May 20, 1993 and such award was upheld by the Superior Court in }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Anderson v. Parkland Dev., Inc.}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , Special Proceeding No. SP0056-94 (September 6, 1994). }{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The Andersons were required to obtain all necessary certificates, licenses, permits, and approvals, i ncluding those affecting the main access road and the wetlands, so that construction could recommence as soon as reasonably possible.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 After the Andersons had failed to obtain all of the}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 necessary documents, Parkland filed a motion for contempt with the trial court which was denied.}{\insrsid5259515 \par \par }{\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [4]}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \tab On September 21, 1995, Parkland notified the Andersons of its intent to rescind the DMA based on the Andersons}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 failure to comply with the mandates of the Arbitration Award.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Subsequently on October 10, 1995, Parkland filed a complaint for rescission and restitution in the amount of $1,363,465.95 or, alternatively, for breach of contract and resulting damages.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The case proceeded to trial and a judgment for rescission and the above restitution, plus interest, was entered on the docket on June 24, 1997.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The Andersons filed a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Guam Rule Civ. P. 60(b) (1994) on November 10, 1997, which the court denied in a written Decision and Order on January 20, 1998 finding that the Andersons had not established their attorney}{ \insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s gross negligence, and concluding that no exceptional circumstances were present which would warrant setting aside the judgment.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 A timely Notice of Appeal was then filed on February 17, 1998.}{\insrsid5259515 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 ANALYSIS}{\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [5]}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \tab The court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 48 U.S.C. }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 1424-3(d) (1984) and 7 GCA }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 3107(b) and 3108.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 We review the trial court}{ \insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Midsea Industrial, Inc. v. HK Engineering, Ltd.}{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , 1998 Guam 14, }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 4.}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Applying this standard, }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [a ] trial court decision will not be reversed unless [an appellate court] has a }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing of the relevant factors.}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Santos v. Carney}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , 1997 Guam 4, }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 4 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Thus, our review being strictly limited, }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 we can only consider whether the denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion; we cannot reach the merits of the underlying judgment.}{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Kagan v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , 795 F.2d 601, 607 (7}{\super\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 th}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid5259515 \par \par }{\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [6]}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \tab This court has previously addressed GRCP 60(b) as it relates to default judgments in }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Midsea Industrial, Inc.}{ \cs15\super\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2384294 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2384294 In }{ \i\fs20\insrsid2384294 Midsea}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 the court adopted the three-part test enumerated by the Ninth Circuit in the case of }{\i\fs20\insrsid2384294 Falk v. Allen}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 , 739 F.2d 461 (9}{\fs20\super\insrsid2384294 th}{ \fs20\insrsid2384294 Cir. 1984). 1998 Guam 14 at }{\fs20\insrsid2384294 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 5. The Appellant urges this court to apply the }{ \i\fs20\insrsid2384294 Falk}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 test in this case; however, the }{\i\fs20\insrsid2384294 Falk}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 test is applicable to the vacation or setting-aside of default judgments. The standard for setting-aside a default judgment is distinct from the vacation of disputed and litigated issues. Default judgments are generally disfavored because they are considered drastic in nature and because there is a strong interest in having cases decided on their merits. }{\i\fs20\insrsid2384294 Id.}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 at }{\fs20\insrsid2384294 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 6. Therefore, we will not apply the }{\i\fs20\insrsid2384294 Falk}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 test to the facts of this case.}}}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 This case, however, is an appeal from a denial of a Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to GRCP 60(b), based upon a judgment entered after the conclusion of a bench trial.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Therefore, the court must consider different factors in determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate its earlier judgment.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The rule itself provides the means for obtaining relief from a judgment or order and states in relevant part:}{\insrsid5259515 \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 (b) Mistakes, Inadvertence, Excusable Neglect, New ly Discovered Evidence, Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party;}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 (4) the judgment is void;}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or if it is no longer equitable that the judgment should h ave prospective application;}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 or (6) any other reason justifying relief from operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken . . . .}{ \insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 GRCP 60(b).}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The court must also consider that }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Rule 60(b)(6) }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 provides for extraordinary relief and requires a showing of exceptional circumstances.}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 "}{\insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Kagan}{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , 795 F.2d at 609 (7}{\super\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 th}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid5259515 \par \par }{\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [7]}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \tab On appeal, the Andersons made several arguments under the }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Falk}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 test which are essentially useless because the }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Falk}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 test is inapplicable in this situation.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Therefore, their only remaining argument is based upon subsection (b)(6), whereby relief from the judgment may be granted for }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 any other reason justifying relief from operation of the judgment.}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 GRCP 60(b).}{\cs15\super\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \cs15\super\insrsid2384294 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2384294 In their Rule 60(b) motion the Andersons argued vacation of the judgment pursuant to subsection (b)(1) and (b)(6); howeve r, on appeal they abandoned their arguments as to subsection (b)(1) and only raise the issue under (b)(6).}}}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The Andersons claim that their attorney at trial was grossly negligent in failing to raise, as affirmative defenses, Parkland}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s failure to comply with Guam}{ \insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s business licensing laws and the failure to obtain a contractor}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s license.}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The court will examine the trial court}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s ruling as it relates to subsection (b)(6).}{\insrsid5259515 }{\b\ul\insrsid5259515 \par \par }{\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [8]}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \tab The Andersons rely heavily on the case of }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , 636 F.2d 572 (D.D.C. 1980) to urge this court to grant relief from judgment.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 In }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Good Luck Nursing Home}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , the district court had granted a motion for summary judgment after the parties stipulated to certain facts; the appellee, three (3) months later sought to have that judgment set aside pursuant to Rule 60(b).}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Id.}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 at 576.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The appellate court affirmed the district court}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s decision to set aside the judgment based on Rule 60(b)(6).}{\insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Id.}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 at 576-77.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Although a party has stipulated to facts and failed to present other key facts, he will ordinarily not be able to prevail under Rule 60(b); }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [t]his does not mean, however, that the district court is powerless to correct errors into which it is led by the parties}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 failure to make the key facts known.}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Id.}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 at 577. }{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The court there recognized that the omission of the key facts which called for reinstatement of the case was inexcusable.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Id.}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 In a footnote, the court also noted that it decided the case based upon subsection (b)(6), as the district court had, and not (b)(1) because the }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 mistake}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 was not of the type subsection (b)(1) was intended to remedy.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Id.}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 at 578 n.4.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The court seemed to be result-oriented.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 In fact, in that same footnote, the court acknowledged the fact that it would not address the reason as to why it decided this case under subsection (b)(6) and not (b)(1), instead only indicating that }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [b]ecause the motion was timely under either subsection, it is not crucial that a distinction between the two be made in this case.}{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Id.}{\cs15\super\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2384294 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2384294 Although this case has not been expressly overruled, it has been distinguished by several Circuit Courts. Furthermore, no Ninth Circuit opinions have followed the reasoning in the}{\i\fs20\insrsid2384294 Good Luck}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 case.}}}{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 }{\insrsid5259515 \par \par }{\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [9]}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \tab Additionally, the Andersons cite the case of }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Patapoff v. Vollstedt}{\i\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s, Inc.}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , 267 F.2d 863 (9}{\super\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 th}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Cir. 1959), in which the court allowed reinstatement of the case where a client was erroneously advised by counsel to forego an affirmative defense.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 In }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Patapoff}{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , the court focused on a policy to liberally construe Rule 60(b) in an interest to have cases decided on their merits.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Id.}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 at 865.}{ \insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 However, in that case, the appellant, immediately sought relief from the judgment ten (10) days after the judgment was entered.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Id.}{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 at 864.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Building upon }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Patapoff}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , in }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Meadows v. Dominican Republic }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , 628 F. Supp. 599 (N. D. Calif. 1986), the court, citing }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Patapoff}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , stated that }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 allegedly erroneous legal advice is not sufficient to establish excusable neglect where the party is (1)}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 fully informed of the relevant legal considerations, and (2) sufficiently sophisticated and experienced to protect its interests.}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Id.}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 at 609.}{\insrsid5259515 \par \par }{\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [10]}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \tab Other jurisdictions have vacated judgments based on the gross neglect of attorneys which created exceptional circumstances and hardship under Rule 60(b).}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 See Boughner v. Secretary of Health, Ed. & Welfare}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , 572 F.2d 976 (3}{\super\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 rd}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Cir. 1978); }{ \i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Lucas v.}{\i\insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 City of Juneau}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , 20 F.R.D. 407 (D.Alaska 1957) and 15 A.L.R. Fed. 193 (holding that gross neglect and abandonment of the client by the attorney create an exception to the rule that a client is bound by the acts of an attorney and also constitute extraordinary circumstances permitting relief from a judgment u nder Rule 60(b)(6)).}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 In contrast, however, the Seventh Circuit has not found extraordinary circumstances of gross negligence of an attorney to justify Rule 60(b) relief.}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Reinsuance Co. of America, Inc. v. Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , 902 F.2d 1275, 1278 ( 7}{\super\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 th}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Cir. 1990) (noting that the Seventh Circuit Court has never held that an attorney's gross negligence justifies relief under Rule 60(b)).}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 In }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Reinsurance}{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , the court further elaborated that the client}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s lack of diligence in pursuing the case cont ributed to the failure to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances which would warrant relief from the judgment.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Id. }{\insrsid5259515 \par \par }{\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [11]}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \tab The Ninth Circuit has also addressed the issue of an attorney}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s gross negligence, under Rule 60(b), in the context of failing to raise an affirmative defense of waiver.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 See}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Allmerica Financial Life Ins. & Annuity Co. v. Llewellyn}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , 139 F.3d 664 (9}{\super\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 th}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Cir. 1997).}{\cs15\super\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2384294 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2384294 In its brief, Parkland attempts to distinguish away other cases which establish gro ss negligence as a basis for Rule 60(b) relief on the grounds that those cases do not involve relief sought from judgments resulting from fully litigated bench trials. Although reasoning exists as to why default judgments must be treated differently, the re is no similar reasoning as to why judgments which are decided on their merits, such as summary judgment motions, should be similarly distinguished.}}}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 In }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Allmerica}{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , Llewellyn had an insurance policy with Allmerica and filed a disability claim through which he was paid monthly benefits.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Id.}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 at 665. }{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Allmerica later discovered that Llewellyn was not }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 disabled}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 under the terms of the policy and stopped paying the benefits.}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Id.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 A declaratory judgment was sought by Allmerica to declare that it was not further obligated to pay Llewellyn under the policy.}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Id.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The trial court granted Allmerica}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s motion for summary judgment and denied Llewellyn}{ \insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s subsequent motion to vacate judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b).}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 On appeal, Llewellyn claimed that defense counsel}{ \insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s failure to raise the affirmative defense of waiver provided the proper grounds for relief under Rule 60(b).}{\insrsid5259515 }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Id.}{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 at 665-66.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The court found this argument to be meritless.}{\insrsid5259515 \par \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [12]}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \tab Furthermore, the court observed that: }{\insrsid5259515 \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 although Rule 60(b)(6) }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 gives the district court power to accomplish justice,}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 such relief requires a showing of }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 extraordinary circumstances.}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The failure of Llewellyn}{ \insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s counsel to assert the affirmative defense of waiver does not, however, constitute such }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 gross negligence or exceptional circumstances so as to justify the extraordinary relief available pursuant to Rule 60(b).}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 .}{ \insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid5259515 \par }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Id.}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 at 666. (citations omitted)}{\insrsid5259515 \par \par }{\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [13]}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \tab In this case, Parkland negotiated the assignment of the DMA with ADC in Singapore, but did not have a license to do business on Guam or a certificate of exemption in the alternative.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 A license was subsequently obtained by Parkland on July 19, 1989, approximately a month after the assignment occurred.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The Andersons claim that, in light of the notoriety of }{\i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 EIE Guam Corp. v. The Long-Term Credit Bank of Japan, Ltd., }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 1998 Guam 6,}{\cs15\super\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2384294 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2384294 The Andersons also cite to the Appellate Division case of }{\i\fs20\insrsid2384294 Archbishop of Guam, Apuron v. G.F.G. Corp.,}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 No. CR-95-00007A, 1995 WL 604383 (D. Guam App. Div. Oct. 2, 1995) in which the court held that substantial compliance with the bus iness licensing laws was insufficient to satisfy the local business licensing requirements. The Andersons also allude to the notoriety of }{\i\fs20\insrsid2384294 EIE Guam Corp.}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 , as the issues in that case also involve the business licensing laws. }{\i\fs20\insrsid2384294 EIE Guam Corp. }{\fs20\insrsid2384294 had not yet been decided at the time the parties submitted their briefs. Although an opinion has since been issued, }{ \i\fs20\insrsid2384294 EIE Guam Corp.}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 did not address }{\i\fs20\insrsid2384294 Archbishop}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 and, therefore, provides no guidance in this situation, even as to the validity of the defense raised. See }{ \i\fs20\insrsid2384294 EIE Guam Corp.}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 , 1998 Guam 6. }}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 defense counsel}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s failure to raise as an affirmative defense Parkland}{ \insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s violation of the business licensing laws constitutes gross negligence.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Additionally, the Andersons claim that another affirmative defense existed which defense counsel also failed to raise}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 67 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 that Parkland was a contractor not in possession of a valid contractor}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s license therefore in violation of Chapter 70 of GCA Title 21.}{\insrsid5259515 \par \par }{\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [14]}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \tab Parkland contends that case law supports the rule that gross negligence is not grounds for granting relief from a judgment.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 In the alternative, it argues that no supporting affidavits or other demonstrative evidence was presented before the trial court to establish gross negligence, should the court find it to be a proper grounds for vacation of judgment.}{\insrsid5259515 \par \par }{\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [15]}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \tab In determining the law on Guam, this court has considered the law of several jurisdictions in the above-cited cases.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 In so considering these cases, two factors weigh heavily on this ruling}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 67 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 (1) that the matter was fully}{ \insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 adjudicated and determined on the merits in a trial; and (2) that parties who may freely choose their attorneys should not be allowed to later avoid the ramification of the acts or omissions of their chosen counsel.}{ \cs15\super\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2384294 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2384294 Other remedies are available to civil parties whose attorney}{\fs20\insrsid9202399 '}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 s conduct has fallen below that of a reasonable attorney placed in the same situation. }}}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 In the case at bar, the matter went through arbitration, an award was made and affirmed by the Superior Court.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The Andersons failed to comply and this case was begun.}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Subsequently, a five (5) day trial in the lower court was conducted.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Prior to the trial, the case was ongoing for a year and a half which provided the Andersons sufficient time to thoroughly defend themselves against Parkland}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s claims.}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Additionally, this court believes it to be a dangerous policy to allow}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 a party to distance himself from the acts of his representative.}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \i\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 , 370 U.S. 626, 634-45, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1390-96 (1962).}{\insrsid5259515 \par \par }{\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [16]}{\b\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The failure of the Andersons}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 counsel to assert the affirmative defenses of lack of business license and of contractor}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s license does not constitute such gross negligence or exceptional circumstances so as to justify the extraordinary relief available pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6).}{\cs15\super\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2384294 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2384294 Our ruling is strictly limited to the interpretation under subsection (b)(6) as this was the only issue presented before the court. }}}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 We therefore find that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Andersons}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Motion for Relief from Judgment.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Defense counsel}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 s failure to raise affirmative defenses cannot act to relieve the Andersons from the judgment received at trial.}{\cs15\super\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2384294 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2384294 Although the Andersons cite the court to case law in support of their position, the court h as chosen to take a different position on the law. Accordingly, the court will not address the cited cases as they relate to the facts of this case. This court is not bound by the precedent set by courts of other jurisdictions. }{ \i\fs20\insrsid2384294 See People v. Quenga}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 , 1997 Guam 6, }{\fs20\insrsid2384294 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 13, n. 4. }}}{\insrsid5259515 }{ \insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The Andersons made no showing, and nothing in the record sufficiently indicates, that exceptional circumstances warranted the necessity of setting aside the judgment.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Therefore, the court finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Andersons}{\insrsid9202399\charrsid5259515 '}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 motion to vacate its judgment.}{\cs15\super\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2384294 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2384294 In so ruling, the court need not look to the merits of the Andersons}{\fs20\insrsid9202399 '}{\fs20\insrsid2384294 alleged meritorious defenses, as such arguments are moot. }}}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 }{\insrsid5259515 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 CONCLUSION}{\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 [17]}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 \tab Based on the authorities cited and upon a consideration of all the circumstances of the case, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the judgment.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 The judgment is hereby }{\b\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 AFFIRMED}{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 . }{\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 RICHARD H.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 BENSON\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 PETER C.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 SIGUENZA \par Designated Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 Associate Justice}{\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid5259515 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5259515 {\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 BENJAMIN J.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 F.}{\insrsid5259515 }{\insrsid2384294\charrsid5259515 CRUZ \par Chief Justice \par }}