{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f41\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f42\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f43\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}
{\f45\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f46\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f47\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f48\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}
{\f49\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f50\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;}{
\s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid11015800 header;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid11015800 footer;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid4397203\rsid5858551\rsid8134515\rsid9249924\rsid9397468\rsid9508377\rsid11015800\rsid15286550}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}
{\info{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min3}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy13\hr15\min15}{\version7}{\edmins4}{\nofpages11}{\nofwords4368}{\nofchars24903}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws29213}{\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\rsidroot15286550 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15286550 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15286550 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15286550 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15286550 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid15286550\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid15286550 
GHURA v. Pacific Superior Enterprises and Melwani, }{\fs20\insrsid15286550 Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid15286550 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid8134515 9}}}{\fs20\insrsid15286550  of 16
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid15286550 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid8134515 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\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 fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}
{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\fs20\insrsid15286550 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid15286550 
\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\pararsid4397203 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 GUAM HOUSING and URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY,
\par a public body corporate and politic,}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par Plaintiff
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 vs.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 PACIFIC SUPERIOR ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, and}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par Defendant-Appellant
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 MANU MELWANI,}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par Defendant-Appellee}{\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 OPINION}{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Filed: April 23, 2001}{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Cite as: 2001 Guam 08}{\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Supreme Court Case No. CVA00-009
\par Superior Court Case No.CV0887-96}{\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on October 27, 2000
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 
\clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4860\clshdrawnil \cellx4740\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4500\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }{\ul\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Appearing for the Defendant-Appellant}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 :
\par Lawrence J. Teker, Esq.
\par TEKER CIVILLE TORRES CALVO & TANG
\par 330 Hernan Cortez Ave.
\par }\pard \ql \fi-2160\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin2160\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\tab \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid4397203 {
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }{\ul\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Appearing for the Defendant-Appellee}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 :
\par Wilson Quinley, Esq.
\par Law Offices of Wilson Quinley
\par Ste. 500 I, GCIC Bldg.
\par 414 W. Soledad Ave.
\par }\pard \ql \fi-2160\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin2160\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\tab \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 
\clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4860\clshdrawnil \cellx4740\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4500\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR., Chief Justice (Acting),}{\cs15\super\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid15286550 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid15286550 The Chief Justice recused himself from decid
ing this matter.  Associate Justice Peter C. Siguenza, Jr.,  as the senior member of the panel, was designated as the Acting Chief Justice.}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  JOHN A. MANGLONA, Designated Justice, and MITCHELL F. THOMPSON, Justice }{
\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid4397203 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 SIGUENZA, C. J.:}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [1]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab This is an appeal of a judgment dismissing the Complaint in Interpleader filed by the Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority}{\insrsid4397203  }{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 against Pacific Superior Enterprises Corporation and Manu Melwani. The Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority does not appeal the Final Judgment; however, Melwani seeks review of the lower court}{
\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s dismissal. We find that the lower court erred in its conclusion that Melwani}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
s disavowal of surety status precluded his recovery of the interpleaded funds. Therefore, we reverse the trial court}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s judgment}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
and remand for further proceedings.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [2]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab Pacific Superior Enterprises Corporation (hereinafter, }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}
{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 PSEC}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
), a local contractor, was the successful bidder on four contracts with the Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority (hereinafter, }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 GHURA}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 ). The contracts involved the 
renovation and repair of several of GHURA}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
s residential housing units. The approximate contract price for all four contracts was $1,517,804. As part of the bid process, PSEC was required to provide a performance or cash bond to guarantee the completion of 
the projects; however, the option of providing a cash escrow in the amount of 20% of the contract price was also offered. PSEC was unable to secure a performance bond from a surety company. Consequently, it entered into an agreement with Manu Melwani (her
einafter, }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Melwani}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 ) wherein the latter agreed to provide the sum of $303,564.80 (20% of the contract price) and}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
in return he would receive $257,266.00 or 16.94% of the gross aggregate amount of the contracts (Melwani labels this as a }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 premium}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
 for the service he provided). Both Melwani and PSEC claim to have directly deposited the cash bonds with GHURA.}{\insrsid15286550 
\par }{\insrsid4397203\charrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [3]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab Each of the contracts entered into by PSEC and GHURA called for the completion of the projects on dates certain. The latest of these dates was September 9, 1994.}{
\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 However, by October 1994, none of the projects had been completed. GH
URA had contacted Melwani and informed him that PSEC had abandoned the projects and was in default on the contracts. GHURA also informed Melwani that if he did not complete the projects then he would forfeit the cash bond advanced on behalf of PSEC.}{
\insrsid15286550 
\par }{\insrsid4397203\charrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [4]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab On or about, October 6, 1994, Melwani engaged the services of Pacific Tri-Star, Inc. (hereinafter, }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Pacific Tri-Star}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 ) to complete the contracts and allegedly expended t
he sum of $272,051.01 for materials, supplies, labor and equipment towards completion of the projects. Additionally, Melwani claims that $97,000.00 is still due and outstanding to various suppliers and laborers from the work performed by Pacific Tri-Star.
 Further, it appears that PSEC directed GHURA to make all payments on the subject contracts }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
jointly in the name of Pacific Superior and its Surety which is namely Manu P. Melwani}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
. On March 14, 1995, PSEC rescinded its earlier authorization that payments be made jointly to itself and Pacific American Title. It further requested that future checks be made payable solely to PSEC.}{\cs15\super\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \chftn 
{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid15286550 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid15286550 Neither party explain
s how Pacific American Title became the co-payee.}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550 
\par }{\insrsid4397203\charrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [5]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab On or about April 13, 1995, counsel for Melwani informed GHURA that Melwani was the surety, that because of PSEC}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s default Melwani, as surety, had to step in and take over all of the GHURA projects. 
Counsel further informed GHURA that the projects were now completed and requested that all of the bond money and the outstanding payments be released to Melwani.
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [6]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab On June 14, 1996, GHURA filed a Complaint in Interpleader in the Superior Court of Guam.}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
Named as defendants were PSEC and Melwani. The gravamen of the Complaint was that GHURA and PSEC had entered into contracts for the repair and renovation of certain housing units owned by GHURA. The subject contracts were fully performed and an aggregate 
a
mount of $411,978.15 represented the unpaid sums due on the contracts. GHURA alleged that it believed that Melwani provided cash bonding to PSEC on the subject contracts in lieu of surety bonding, and that both Melwani and PSEC claim all of the outstandin
g
 balances on the subject contracts. Consequently, GHURA claimed that it was unable to determine the validity of the conflicting claims and who should be paid. Additionally, GHURA disclaimed any interest in the outstanding balance. The Complaint prayed for
 
the relief that the Defendants be interpleaded and that they litigate their respective rights to the outstanding balances, that GHURA be discharged from any and all liability on account of the claims, and that it be allowed to deposit the disputed amount 
into the court. The Complaint further prayed that the parties be enjoined from instituting any action against GHURA for the recovery of any amounts arising from the subject contracts.}{\insrsid15286550 
\par }{\insrsid4397203\charrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [7]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab On July 1, 1996, Melwani answered the Complaint and claimed that he 
was entitled to the sum of $424,335.20 representing the amount expended to complete the projects by hiring other contractors, laborers and materials. He also filed a Cross-Claim against PSEC alleging that he had entered into a bonding agreement with PSEC 
for the subject contracts and that he was owed $257,266 as a premium for such services.
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [8]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab On August 8, 1996, PSEC filed both its Answer to the Cross-Claim and its Answer, Counter-claim and Third Party Claim to the Complaint in Interpleader. PSEC averred 
that Melwani was not its surety and claimed all amounts alleged in the Complaint. PSEC further counter-claimed against GHURA for the amount of $400,384.50 for delays and non-negotiated change orders owed to PSEC by GHURA and alleged that GHURA wrongfully 
made partial payments on the contracts in the sum of $266,870.43 to PSEC and Pacific Title Insurance and Escrow Company (hereinafter }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 PATIECO}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 ). PSEC also filed cross-cl
aims against Third Party Defendants, Pacific Tri-Star, Inc. and PATIECO, alleging that those entities were alter egos of Melwani and that any liability incurred by them should be assessed against Melwani. It was also alleged that Melwani misappropriated f
u
nds from a joint account he had with PSEC without prior authorization from PSEC, that Melwani prevented PSEC from paying certain taxes, that Melwani and PATIECO caused GHURA to issue six checks totalling $266,870.43 jointly payable to PSEC and PATIECO, th
a
t Melwani and Pacific Tri-Star wrongfully asserted false claims against the funds owed by GHURA to PSEC, and that Melwani, Pacific Tri-Star, and PATIECO all engaged in willful and oppressive conduct entitling PSEC to an award of exemplary damages. Melwani
 thereafter filed a responsive pleading generally denying all of the allegations.
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [9]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab On May 15, 1997, GHURA}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
deposited into the registry of the Superior Court the amount of $411,978.15 pursuant to an Order Granting Interpleader and Discharging the Plaintif
f. The Order also provided that Melwani and PSEC would litigate, between themselves, their respective claims to the deposited funds. Additionally, it provided that Melwani and PSEC were enjoined from instituting or maintaining any claim or action against 
GHURA for the interpleaded funds.
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [10]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab On August 27, 1999, PSEC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that Melwani was}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 not a surety and therefore had}{
\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 not}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 been entitled to be interpleaded and that consequently, the Order granting Interpleader and Discharging GHURA}{\insrsid4397203  }{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 was improper. On November 19, 1999, a new trial judge issued a Decision and Order granting PSEC}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
s Motion for Summary Judgment. The lower court held that Melwani}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s claim against PSEC was not based upon the contracts between PSEC and GHURA, nor
 was it for the specific property involved in the dispute between the latter. The court then ordered that the money deposited by GHURA be released to PSEC. Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) was filed on March 17, 2000. Melwani made a Motion for Recons
ideration which was denied by Judge Bordallo on April 4, 2000. Melwani filed his Notice of Appeal immediately thereafter.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 II. DISCUSSION}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [11]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  3107 and 3108(a) (1994). A grant of summary judgment is reviewed }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 de novo}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 . }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Guam v. Marfega Trading Co.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 1998 Guam 4, }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  9}{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 ; Kim v. Hong}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 1997 Guam 11, }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  5;}{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  Iizuka Corp. v. Kawasho Int}{\i\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 l (Guam), Inc.}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 1997 Guam 10, }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  7. Summary judgment is proper }{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories
, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. . . .}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  Guam R. Civ. P. 56(c). }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 There is a genuine issue if there is }{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 sufficient evidence}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
 which establishes a factual dispute requiring resolution by a fact-finder.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  Iizuka}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 1997 Guam 10 at }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  7. However, the dispute must be as to a }{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 material fact.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Id}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 . }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 A }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 material}{
\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
 fact is one that is relevant to an element of a claim or defense and whose existence might affect the outcome of the suit. . . . Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude a grant of summary judgment.}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Id.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
 (citation omitted). If the movant can demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact, the non-movant cannot merely rely on allegations contained in the complaint, but must produce at
 least some significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint. }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Id}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 . at }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 8 (citing }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986)). }{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
In addition, the court must view the evidence and draw inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{
\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  Id. }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 (citation omitted).
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 A. Motion for Reconsideration}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [12]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab We first dispose of Melwani}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s argument that the lower court committed error because it entertained PSEC}{
\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s second motion for partial summary judgment which was essentially a time-barred motion for reconsideration. As authority for the proposition, he cites to Rule 59 and 60 of the Gu
am Rules of Civil Procedure and this court}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s holding in }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Merchant v. Nanyo Realty, Inc.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
, 1998 Guam 26. PSEC counters that the lower court merely reconsidered an interlocutory order and that such orders are freely reversible. We agree and conclude that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in this regard.
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [13]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab A motion for reconsideration is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.}{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  Merchant}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 1998 Guam 26 at }{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  6 (citation omitted). However, it is a general rule t
hat an order granting interpleader is interlocutory. }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 See Ergo Science, Inc. v. Martin}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 73 F. 3d 595, 597 (5th Cir. 1996). Interlocutory orders are subject to reconsideration}{
\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 by the court at any time.}{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  Cf. Preaseau v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 591 F. 2
d 74. 79-80 (9th Cir. 1979) (citations omitted) (holding that an order denying summary judgment is interlocutory and subject to reconsideration at anytime). 
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [14]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab The trial court in this case analyzed the propriety of the earlier order granting interpleader status in the context of the }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 law of the case}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  doctrine. Under that doctrine, a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case. }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
See People v. Hualde}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 1999 Guam 3, }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  13 (citations omitted). }{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 The doctrine is not a limitation on a tribunal}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s power but rather a guide to its discretion.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  }{
\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Id.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 A court has discretion to depart from the law of the case where: (1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; (
2) an intervening change in the law has occurred; (3) the evidence on remand is substantially different; (4) other changed circumstances exist; or (5) a manifest injustice would otherwise result. Failure to apply the doctrine of the law of the case absent
 one of the requisite conditions constitutes an abuse of discretion.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Id.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  (citations omitted).
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [15]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab The trial court here reasoned that, at the time the interpleader was granted, Melwani had asserted surety status. However, by the time the case was assigned
 to the present trial judge, Melwani was disclaiming surety status. We find no fault in the lower court}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
s conclusion that such a change in position is a change of circumstances warranting its reconsideration of the order granting interpleader. The pleading
s in this case reveal that Melwani, at the initial stages of the litigation, had grounded his claim to the interpleaded funds solely on the basis of his alleged status as a surety. Subsequent disavowal of that status could certainly have affected the prop
riety of the decision to allow the interpleader action to proceed. Thus, we do not find that the trial court here abused its discretion in reconsidering the order granting the interpleader.
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 B. Equitable Subrogation}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [16]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab Turning to the main issue of this c
ase, specifically, whether the trial court erred in concluding that there was not a genuine issue of material fact which justified maintenance of the instant interpleader action, we conclude that there are issues of material fact which precluded the grant
 of summary judgment. Guam}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s interpleader provisions state:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
Persons having claims against the plaintiff may be joined as defendants and required to interplead when their claims are such that plaintiff is or may be exposed to double or multiple liability. I
t is not ground for objection to the joinder that the claims of the several claimants or the titles on which their claims depend do not have a common origin or are not identical but are adverse to and independent of one another, or that the plaintiff aver
s that the plaintiff is not liable in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants. A defendant exposed to similar liability may obtain such interpleader by way of cross\_
claim or counterclaim. The provisions of this rule supplement and do not in any way limit the joinder of parties permitted in Rule 20.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par Guam R.Civ. Pro. 22; and 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
[W]henever conflicting claims are or may be made upon a person for or relating to personal property, or the performance of an obligation, or any portion thereof, such person may
 bring an action against the conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves. The order of substitution may be made and the action of interpleader may be maintained, and the applicant or plaintiff be d
ischarged from liability to all or any of the conflicting claimants, although their titles or claims have not a common origin, or are not identical, but are adverse to and independent of one another. 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  12114 (1993).
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [17]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
The purpose of interpleader is to prevent a multiplicity of suits and double vexation.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  }{
\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 City of Morgan Hill v. Brown}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 71 Cal. App. 4th 1114, 1122, 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 361, 365 (Ct. App. 1999)(citations omitted). }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 The right to the remedy by interpleader is founded, however, not on the consideration that a person may be subjected t
o double liability, but on the fact that he is threatened with double vexation in respect to one liability.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Id.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  at 1122, 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 365-66. Interpleader is proper if the claims relate to the same thing, debt, or duty held by the stakeholder. }{
\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Id.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  at 1123, 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 366;}{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  see generally Libby, McNeill and Libby v. City Nat}{\i\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{
\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 l Bank}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 592 F.2d 504 (9th Cir. 1978)(discussing the Federal statutory and Rule 22 interpleader actions). 
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [18]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab In }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 City of Morgan Hill}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
, the plaintiff filed a complaint in interpleader against a law firm and Seltzer, a former attorney with the firm. As a result of the representation by the firm, legal fees were owed.}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
Seltzer, who had done work for the plaintiff while employed with the firm, made a claim to the fees as did the firm itself.}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
The plaintiff was allowed to interplead the two parties, to deposit the funds with the court, and to be discharged from the case. The parties were left to litigate the ownership of the 
fees. Neither Seltzer nor the firm objected. Subsequently, the firm filed a summary judgment motion of the interpleader action. The lower court granted the motion and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that Seltzer was unable to demonstrate 
that she and the firm assert the right to the same thing, debt, or duty owed by the plaintiff. }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Id.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
 at 1123-24, 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 366. It concluded that all Seltzer had was a right against the firm for compensation pursuant to her internal agreements with the firm. }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Id.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
 at 1125, 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 367.
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [19]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab The interpleaded funds, the stake,}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
represent the aggregate balance due on the four contracts that GHURA alleges as outstanding and unpaid.}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 The record, as developed below, does not indicate that the funds deposited into the Superior Court
}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s Registry include the cash escrow to secure PSEC}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s performance.}{\insrsid4397203 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [20]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab Melwani asserts that under the theory of equitable subrogation, he would be entitled to the interpleaded funds. If it does result in the validity of Melwani}{
\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s claim against the interpleaded funds then he, rather than PSEC, would be entitled to the funds on deposit. The difficulty here is that the trial court}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '
}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s justification for the dismissal of the interpleader action lay exclusively with the disavowal, by Melwani, of his status as the surety of PSEC. The lower court essentially reasoned that}{\insrsid4397203  }{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Melwani}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s claim against PSEC, and consequently upon the money deposited by GHURA, was premised upon Melwani}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s status as a surety of PSEC, then he would not be enti
tled to the specific property involved in the dispute between PSEC and GHURA when he now admits that he was not the surety of PSEC. The trial court did not address Melwani}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
s equitable subrogation claim although PSEC seems to acknowledge that the argument was before the trial court. Our review of the record, examination of the doctrine of equitable subrogation, and the trial court}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s failure to address Melwani}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s theory leads us to conclude that genuine issues of material fact exist which preclude the grant of
 summary judgment in this case and consequently that the dismissal of the in}{\insrsid4397203 terpleader action was in error.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [21]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab Generally stated, equitable subrogation }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 allows a person who pays off an encumbrance to assume the same priority position as the holder of the previous encumbrance.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid4397203  }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Mort v. United States}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
, 86 F. 3d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). It is appropriate where (1) the subrogee made the payment to protec
t his own interest, (2) the subrogee did not act as a volunteer, (3) the subrogee was not primarily liable for the debt paid, (4) the subrogee paid off the entire debt, and (5) subrogation would not work any injustice to the rights of others. }{
\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Han v. United States}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 944 F. 2d 526, 529 (9th }{\insrsid4397203 Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid15286550 
\par }{\insrsid4397203\charrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [22]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab PSEC argues that Melwani was not entitled to be equitably subrogated to its claim against GHURA because he had disavowed any status as a surety.}{\insrsid4397203  }{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 PSEC cites to no authority for the proposition that equitable subrogation is limited to that context. To be sure, it has been applied where a surety relationship exists. }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 See}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Golden Eagle Ins. Co. v. First Nationwide Fin. Corp.}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 26 Cal. App. 4th 160, 169-70
, 31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 815, 821-22 (Ct. App. 1994). However, courts have utilized the doctrine in other circumstances. }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 See}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 e.g.}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Rhine v. Kemmerrer (In re Kemmerrer)}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 114 Cal. App. 2d 810, 251 P.2d 345 (Ct. App. 1952)(holding that equitable subrogation was ava
ilable to person who had incurred expenses for the care and interment of decedent and had priority over a family allowance from decedent}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s estate)}{
\cs15\super\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid15286550 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid15286550 
That case also observed:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid15286550 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid15286550 Since the doctrine was first ingrafted on equity jurisprudence, it has been steadi
ly expanding and growing in importance and extent, and is no longer, as formerly, limited to sureties and quasi sureties, but is now broad and expansive and has a very liberal application.  
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid15286550 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid15286550 114 Cal. App. 2d at  814, 251 P.2d at 347 (citation omitted).}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 ;}{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  and Mort,}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  86 F.3d at 890 (holding that equitable subrogation applied and inured to the benefit of purchasers of property which had a tax lien imposed upon it). Thus, the existence of}{\insrsid4397203  }{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 a surety relationship is not determinative in the application of equitable subrogation. 
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [23]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab 
The issue then becomes whether Melwani has come forward with significant probative evidence that tends to support proper invocation of the doctrine of equitable subrogation in order to be entitled to the interpleaded funds. If so, the
n irrespective of whether he was or was not a surety, Melwani would be substituted in place of}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
PSEC and all its claims for payment on the contracts. An examination of the factors outlined above leads us to conclude that Melwani may have had a valid claim to the specific funds in dispute.
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [24]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab The facts show that Melwani}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s completion of the various projects was undertaken to protect the cash deposits made to GHURA that represented the guarantee of PSEC}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
s performance of the contracts. That is, Melwani}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s interjection into the controversy}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
was premised on the concern that the cash deposits would be forfeited. Melwani}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
s actions tend to indicate that he was protecting his own interest rather than to meddle into relations between PSEC and GHURA.}{\insrsid4397203  }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Cf. Han}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 944 F. 2d 
at 530. Moreover, the record does not indicate that Melwani had acted as a mere volunteer when he undertook to complete the contracts.}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
In determining whether a person acts as a volunteer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held \tab A volunteer, stranger, 
or intermeddler is one who thrusts himself into a situation on his own initiative, and not one who becomes a party to a transaction upon the urgent petition of a person who is vitally interested, and whose rights would be sacrificed did he not respond to 
t
he importunate appeal. . . Parties may be considered volunteers if, in making a payment, they have no interest of their own to protect, they act without any obligation, legal or moral, and they act without being requested to do so by the person liable on 
the original obligation.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Mort}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 86 F.3d at 894 (citations and internal quotations omitted).
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [25]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab Here, GHURA was operating under the assumption that Melwani was PSEC}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
s surety in requesting that Melwani complete the projects. PSEC disputes whether it was in default of the contracts yet seems to agree that someone else, other than itself, completed the projects. It was not the person originally liable for performance, }
{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 i.e}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 . PSEC, who had requested that Melwani take over or otherwise ensure that completion of the projects occurred. It was GHURA who had sought Melwani}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '
}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s assistance; and GHURA had a vital interest in seeking completion of the renovation/construction of its housing units.}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
Although mistaken in its belief that Melwani was a surety, GHURA sought and apparently received satisfaction from Melwani.}{\insrsid15286550 
\par }{\insrsid4397203\charrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [26]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab Further,}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 there is no dispute that Melwani was not primarily liable to GHURA for completion of the projects.}{
\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 The renovation and repair of GHURA residential housing units was PSEC}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
s obligation under the contracts with GHURA. It is not disputed that PSEC}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s obligation under the contract with}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
GHURA, that is, the renovation and repair of the housing units, was fully performed and its duty discharged. }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Cf. Han}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 944 F.2d at 530. We see nei
ther injustice nor prejudice in the invocation of equitable subrogation in this case. GHURA would have discharged its obligations and duty to perform under the contracts. PSEC, who ostensibly did not complete its performance under the contracts, could har
dly be seen to complain that it was entitled to the balance of the contracts for work it did not perform.
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [27]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab PSEC disputes Melwani}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s claim that he completed the GHURA projects.}{\insrsid4397203  }{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 PSEC alleges that it was Pacific Tri-Star and not Melwani who should be equitably subrogated because it was Pacific Tri-Star which actually completed the contract work.}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
While Melwani may have hired Pacific Tri-Star to provide the materials and labor to complete the contract work, that does not mean that Pacific tri-Star thereby obtained a right to receive the remaining proceeds of the GHURA contracts.
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [28]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab Melwani asserts that he expended funds in the amount of $272,051.01, including amounts paid to Pacific Tri-Star, to complete PSEC}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s performance under the GHURA contracts. Record 
on Appeal, Vol. I, tab 36 (Decl. of Manu Melwani). Melwani also asserts that he owes an additional amount of $97,000.00 to various laborers and material suppliers for those contracts. }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Ibid}{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 . Because we must review the evidence and draw inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant, }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Iizuka}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 1997 Guam 10 at }{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
 8, we conclude that Melwani may be able to invoke the doctrine of equitable subrogation to establish a claim to the interpleaded funds. 
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [29]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab PSEC}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s
 argument that Pacific Tri-Star is the party to whom equitable subrogation is appropriate completely misses the point.}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 The doctrine of equitable subrogation:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 is a broad equitable remedy, not limited to circumstances where these five factors are met, but i
s appropriate whenever one person, not acting as a mere volunteer or intruder, pays a debt for which another is primarily liable, and which in equity and good conscience should have}{\insrsid8134515  been discharged by the latter.}{
\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Han,}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  944 F. 2d at 529 (citation and inter}{\insrsid8134515 nal quotations omitted).}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [30]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab 
As demonstrated above, Melwani fits the description of one entitled to application of the doctrine, in contrast with Pacific Tri-Star, whose claim for payment, if any, would be against Melwani, the person who engaged its ser
vices. Pacific Tri-Star had no interest to protect under the}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 GHURA-PSEC contracts. Pacific Tri-Star was merely the replacement contractor engaged by Melwani to complete the renovation and repairs. 

\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [31]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab It should also be noted that, as Melwani}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s cross-cla
im against PSEC for the payment of a premium for the bonding agreement does not implicate the interpleaded funds, the cross-claim is thus no basis for maintaining the interpleader action. }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
See e.g., Libby, McNeill, and Libby}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 592 F. 2d at 509 (holding that 
interpleader is designed to protect a stakeholder from multiple liability only when based upon the specific fund proffered by the interpleader plaintiff).
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 C. Assignment
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par [32]\tab }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Finally, we hold that Melwani}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
s alternative theory for reversal of the judgment below is without merit. Melwani argued on appeal that he was entitled to the interpleaded funds by virtue of assignment of the proceeds to his benefit.}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
Although we agree with the lower court}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s conclusion th
at there was no assignment, our decision rests on distinct grounds. The trial court had determined after review of several promissory notes provided by Melwani that no assignment of the proceeds of the contracts between PSEC and GHURA had been made to Mel
wani and could not serve as a basis for resisting dismissal of the interpleader action.}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 On appeal, however, Melwani argues that a letter dated October 6, 1994,}{\insrsid4397203  }{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 from PSEC to GHURA directing that }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
all payment requests made to Pacific Superior Enterprises shall be made henceforth jointly in the name of Pacific Superior and its Surety which is namely Manu P. Melwani}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  constituted a valid assignment. Defendant-Appellant}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s E}{\insrsid4397203 
xcerpts of Record at 1 (Exh.6).}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [33]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab Although no particular form of assignment is necessary, to be effective }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 it must be a manifestation to another person by the owner of the right indicating his i
ntention to transfer, without further action or manifestation of intention, the right to such other person, or to a third person. . . .}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}
{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 United Cal. Bank v. Behrends}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 , 251 Cal. App. 2d 720, 725, 60 Cal. Rptr. 128,
 133 (Ct. App. 1967) (citations and internal quotations omitted). We do not see how the above-referenced letter could serve as an assignment of the contract proceeds.}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
Nowhere on the document at issue does the word }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 assignment}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  appear. Without direction to other undisputed facts, it is difficult to conclude, on the letter itself, that an unequivocal}{
\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 manifestation of intent by PSEC to transfer his right to receive payment on the contracts to Melwani occurred or was even intended.}{\insrsid15286550 
\par }{\insrsid4397203\charrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [34]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab Therefore, we conclude that, on the record before us and as a matter of law, there was no}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
assignment of the contract proceeds which would serve as a basis for reversing the dismissal of the interpleader complaint.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 III. CONCLUSION}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\b\insrsid4397203 
\par }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 [35]}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 \tab Therefore, we find that the summary judgment in favor of PSEC and the subsequent dismissal of the Complaint in Interpleader was in error.}{\insrsid4397203  }{
\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Although the lower court found that Melwani}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s admission that he was not 
the surety of PSEC precluded recovery of the interpleaded funds; it failed to address Melwani}{\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 
s argument that he was entitled to the funds under the theory of equitable subrogation notwithstanding the non-existence of a surety relationship. In light of the fact that there was no consideration of the viability of Melwani}{
\insrsid9249924\charrsid4397203 '}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 s claim under this theory, we determine that a genuine issue of a material fact, the ownership of the funds, precluded summary judgment. We consequently }{
\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 REVERSE}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  the judgment below and }{\b\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 REMAND}{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203  the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.}{
\insrsid4397203 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 JOHN A.}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 MANGLONA\tab \tab \tab \tab MITCHELL F. THOMPSON
\par Designated Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Justice }{\i\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5858551 {\insrsid4397203 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4397203 {\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 PETER C.}{\insrsid4397203  }{\insrsid15286550\charrsid4397203 SIGUENZA, JR.
\par Chief Justice (Acting)
\par }}