{\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};}{\f172\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f173\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}
{\f175\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f176\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f177\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f178\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}
{\f179\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f180\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\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\ul\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Title;}{\*\cs17 \additive \super Footnote Ref;}}{\*\revtbl {Unknown;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid7889458\rsid8419053\rsid8866490\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\min4}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy10\hr10\min43}{\version3}{\edmins4}{\nofpages20}{\nofwords8618}
{\nofchars49124}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws57627}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb720 
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3
\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot7889458 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7889458 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7889458 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7889458 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7889458 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \linex0\headery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid7889458\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 Town House v. Ahn II, }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 Opinion\tab \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid7889458 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid8419053 20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458  of 27
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid7889458 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-9\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid8419053 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom9\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\dpysize9\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid7889458 
\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\pararsid8419053 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\insrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 TOWN HOUSE DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.,}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par Plaintiff-Appellee
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 v. }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 HI SUP AHN,}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par Defendant-Appellant}{\insrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\insrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Supreme Court Case No.: CVA01-018
\par Superior Court Case No.: CV0098-97}{\insrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\insrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 OPINION}{\insrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\insrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Filed:}{\b\insrsid8419053  }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 March 7, 2003}{\insrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\insrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid8419053  }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 2003 Guam 6}{\insrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\insrsid8419053 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 \b\fs24\ul\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b0\ulnone\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on June 19, 2002
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\b0\insrsid8419053 
\par 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid8419053 \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\plain 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid8419053 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\ul\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\ul\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee:}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par James M. Maher, Esq.\tab 
\par Maher & Thompson
\par 140 Aspinall Ave., Suite 201\tab 
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910
\par \cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Appearing for Defendant-Appellant}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 :
\par Hi Sup Ahn, }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Pro Se}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par A3, 21 W. Buena Vista Ave.
\par Dededo, GU 96912
\par P. O. Box 20968, G.M.F.
\par Barrigada, GU 96921\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow 
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid8419053 \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\pararsid8419053 {\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 

\par BEFORE:}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR., Chief Justice}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\insrsid7889458  }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 The signatures in this Opinion reflect the titles of the justices at the time this matter was considered and determined.}}
}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice.}{\insrsid8419053 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 CARBULLIDO, J.:
\par 
\par [1]\tab }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 This case arises out of a contract between the Plaintiff-Appellee Town House Department Stores, Inc. (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ) and Defendant-Appellant Hi Sup Ahn (}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ) wherein Ahn executed a personal guarantee in favor of Town House as additional security for a contract for the sale of furniture.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Upon default in payment under the sales contract, and pursuant to its rights as a secured creditor, Town House repossessed and sold the furniture, which served as collateral for the sale.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Town House thereafter sued Ahn for the deficiency pursuant to its rights under the personal guarantee contract.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The lower court granted Town House}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s requested relief, and Ahn appealed the deficiency judgment on the ground that the lower court erroneously failed to make a finding on whether the sale price of the collateral was fair and reasonable.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
In an Amended Opinion filed on October 10, 2000, cited as }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House Department Stores, Inc. v. Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 2000 Guam 29, (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
), this court reversed the trial court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s defi
ciency judgment and remanded for a finding on the issue of whether the sale price of the furniture was fair and reasonable.}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [2]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab On remand, the lower court found that the sale price was }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 fair and reasonable,}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  and entered judgment in favor of Town House.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Ahn filed a motion for amended and additional findings of fact and conclusions of law.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Ahn also pursued a previously filed motion to set aside the judgment.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The trial court denied both motions.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Ahn filed the instant appeal, arguing that: (1) the trial court erroneously failed to make a finding on whether the sale price was fair and reasonable; (2) the trial court erred by rendering a written decision and order on rema
nd without conducting further proceedings; and (3) the trial court erred in denying Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s post-trial}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 motions.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 We reject each of Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s arguments and therefore affirm the lower court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s judgment.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 I.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [3]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab On December 9, 1994, T&K Development Corporation (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 T&K}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
), of which Ahn was a shareholder and officer, and Town House, executed a sales contract and security agreement for the purchase of furniture for Ladera Towers (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 First Contract}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ).}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The purchase price for the furniture under the First Contract was $328,824.00.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 T&K made payments totaling $85,000.00 under the First Contract}{
\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\insrsid7889458  }{
\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 Appellant}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s Excerpts of Record, p. 1.}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 However, due to T&K}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s inability to pay in accordance with the agreed-upon terms, Town House threatened repossession.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 As a result, Ahn executed a }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 restructured}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
 sales contract and security agreement (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Second Contract}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ).}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\insrsid7889458  }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See}{\fs20\insrsid7889458  Record on Appeal, tab 1, Plaintiff}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s Exhibit 1 (Security Agreement).}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Ahn also executed a personal guarantee as additional security for the sale.}{
\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\insrsid7889458  }{
\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See}{\fs20\insrsid7889458  Record on Appeal, tab 1, Plaintiff}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s Exhibit 2 (Guarantee).}}}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The Second Contract was for $370,213.71, which included $344,299.40 for the furniture, and $25,914.31 for the cost of financing.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\insrsid7889458  }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
 Record on Appeal, tab 1, Plaintiff}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s Exhibit 1 (Sales Contract).}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 

\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [4]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Ahn defaulted on the 
payment terms of the Second Contract, and, pursuant to its rights as a secured creditor, Town House sold the furniture for $150,000.00 to LG Construction, the new owner of Ladera Towers.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Town House thereafter filed an action on the guarantee against Ahn to collect on the deficiency of approximately $136,184.44.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
On July 6, 1998, after a bench trial, the lower court filed a judgment for Town House.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Ahn filed a motion for a new trial on July 16, 1998, which was denied by the trial court in an order filed on
 September 2, 1998.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The underlying judgment for Town House was thereafter entered on the docket on September 15, 1998.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Ahn appealed the September 15, 1998 judgment to this court in Supreme Court Case No. CVA 98-024.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\insrsid7889458  }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 Notably, Ahn did not appeal the trial court}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s denial of his new trial motion.}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
While the September 1998 judgment was on appeal, on June 29, 1999, Ahn filed in the Superior Court a motion to vacate and set aside the September 1998 judgment and for 
leave to file an amended answer and counter-claims for fraud pursuant to Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
The motion was apparently vacated on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion because the case was on appeal.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  See Record on Appeal, tab 112 (Ahn}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s Notice of Mot. & Mot. For Leave to Vacate).}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [5]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab In an Amended Opinion filed on October 10, 2000, cited as }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House v. Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 2000 Guam 29, this court reversed the trial court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s September 15, 1998 judgment and remanded for a finding on the issue of whether the sale price of the furniture was fair and reasonable.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 On remand, the trial 
court, without conducting a hearing or accepting additional evidence, filed a Decision and Order on May 21, 2001, finding that the sale price was }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 fair and reasonable.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
The court also filed its judgment in favor of Town House on June 14, 2001.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
On June 5, 2001, Ahn filed a motion for amended and additional findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b).}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  It is not entirely clear 
from the docket sheet when Ahn filed his Rule 52(b) motion; however, according to the docket sheet, Ahn filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support of his motion for additional findings on June 5, 2001.  Presumably, the Rule 52(b) motion was f
iled prior to or on that date.  Furthermore, during a hearing on July 13, 2001, the lower court and attorneys for the parties also referred to a Rule 52(b) motion filed on June 5, 2001.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
Supplemental Excerpts of Record, p. 14.}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Around that time, Ahn also requested a hearing on the Rule 60(b) motion that he originally filed on June 29, 1999.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The trial court held a hearing on both motions and denied both motions from the bench.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 A written order denying the motions was filed thereafter on September 14, 2001.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 This appeal followed.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 II.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [6]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab This court has jurisdiction over the appeal of the final judgment and post-judgment orders entered by the Superior Court pursuant to Title 7 GCA }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
 3107 and 3108 (1994).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 III.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [7]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Ahn lists seven points of error in his Opening Brief.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
They are summarized as follows: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to conduct }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 further proceedings}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  on remand; (2) the trial court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s judgment should be reversed because the court failed to make a finding on whether the sale price of the furniture was fair and reasonable; (3) the trial court}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s judgment should be set aside because Buzz Shiroma, who testified for Town House, delivered perjured testimony which constitutes fraud upon the court; (4) the trial court erred in i
ncluding in the deficiency judgment the value of furniture which Ahn never received from Town House; (5) Buzz Shiroma}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s testimony at trial, that the vertical blinds in Ladera would be difficult to remove, was contrary to facts later discovered by Ahn; (6) the trial court erred in denying Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Rule 52(b) motion to amend findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (7) the trial court erred in denying Ahn}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s Rule 60(b) motion in which Ahn alleged that Town House committed fraud in executing the Second Contract.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [8]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Upon review of the record, it appears that the third through fifth arguments, enumerated above, were raised by Ahn on remand of }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I 
}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 in the context of Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Rule 60(b) and 52(b) motions.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Specifically, Ahn raised issue three in support of his 60(b) motion to set aside the deficiency judgment.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Ahn raise
d issues four and five in support of his Rule 52(b) motion to amend the judgment.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The trial court denied both post-trial motions on remand, and, consequently, in doing so, rejected Ahn}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s third through fifth arguments.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Therefore, because issues three through five were both raised and rejected on remand in the context of Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Rule 52(b) and 60(b) motions, we herein consolidate them with arguments six and seven which present challenges to the trial court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s denial of Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s post-trial motions.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Kimberlin v. Quinlan}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 199 F.3d 496, 500 (D.C. Cir. 1999).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Accordingly, Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s seven arguments in the instant appeal can be reduced to four.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Those four issues are discussed in turn below.
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 A.}{\b\insrsid8419053  }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Rule 70(a).}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [9]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Ahn argues that the trial court was required to make a finding on remand that Town House sold the furniture for a fair and reasonable price.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Ahn argues that the trial court failed to make this finding and the deficiency judgment in favor of Town House should therefore be reversed.}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [10]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab We easily dispose of Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s first argument.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Pursuant to the }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Opinion and Mandate, the trial court was required to make a finding under Rule 70(a) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the sale price.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Rule 70(a) provides: }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
No deficiency judgment after repossession of personal property shall be granted unless it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court by proper evidence that said property was resold for a fair and reasonable price.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Guam R. Civ. P. 70(a).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
On remand, the trial court issued a decision and order providing:}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 I Kotte}{\cs15\i\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  Translated as }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 The Court.}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, mindful of the mandate issued by }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 I Kotte Ni Mas Takhilo}{\cs15\i\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\insrsid7889458  }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 Translated as }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}
{\fs20\insrsid7889458 The Supreme Court.}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}}}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 in }{
\ul\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House Department Stores, Inc. v. Hi Sup Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 2000 Guam 29, has r
eached the conclusion herein that the sale price negotiated and received by the Plaintiff for the inventory of furniture in this matter was unquestionably both fair and reasonable. . . . }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 I Kotte}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  finds that in light of the circumstances of this case, the $150,000.00 purchase price was both fair and reasonable and commercially reasonable.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par Record on Appeal, tab 119, pp. 11-12 (Disision Yan Otden}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  Translated as }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 Decision and Order.}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , May 21, 2001).}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [11]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Thus, contrary to Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s argument, the trial court in fact made a specific finding, as required under Rule 70(a), that the sale price upon foreclosure was fair and reasonable.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Accordingly, Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s fi}{\insrsid8419053 rst point of error is rejected.}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 B.}{\b\insrsid8419053  }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Further Proceedings.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [12]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab As stated earlier, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Town House on its claim for a deficiency.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 In }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , this court issued a Mandate reversing the lower court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s judgment and remanding the case.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 On remand, without allowing further briefing or argument
s, or accepting new or additional evidence, the trial court issued a Decision and Order finding that the sale price was fair and reasonable.
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [13]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Ahn argues that in }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , this court remanded the case for further proceedings.}{\insrsid8419053  }
{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 He asserts that because no further proceedings were conducted, the lower court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s judgment should be reversed.
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [14]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab While the language }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
further proceedings}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  was not used in either the }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Opinion or Mandate, Ahn is correct in asserting that the trial court was required to conduct further proceedings.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Because the case was remanded, the trial court necessarily was required to conduct further proceedings, even without specific directions given to that effect.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Haeuser v. Dep}{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 t of Law}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 2002 Guam 8, }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  16 (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [E]very remanded case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the appellate court opinion.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}
}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ) (citation omitted), }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 cert. granted}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , Case No. 02-72249 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2002);}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  Abrams v. Scott}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 211 S.W.2d 718, 721 (Mo. 1948) (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Every case which is remanded is remanded }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 for further proceedings,}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  whether those words are used or not, and such further proceedings are expected to be }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 in accordance}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  with the opinion rendered.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Consequently, Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s bare assertion that the trial court was required to conduct }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 further proceedings}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  is, by itself, unavailing.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
The determinative question is what type of }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 further proceedings}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  were required.}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [15]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab It is unclear what type of }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 further proceedings}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  Ahn argues should have been conducted.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 It appears that Ahn argues that the trial court was required to conduct an entirely new trial, or, at the very least, accept new evidence or hear additional 
arguments on the issue of whether the sale price of the furniture was fair and reasonable.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House contends that pursuant to this court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Opinion and Mandate in }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , the trial court w
as not required to accept additional evidence on remand.
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [16]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab On remand, a trial court must comply with the mandate of the appellate court.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Haeuser}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 2002 Guam 8 at }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  17; }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Ex Parte King}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 821 So. 2d 205, 208 (Ala. 2001) (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The trial court}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s duty is to comply with the mandate }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 according to its true intent and meaning}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  . . . .}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ) (citation omitted); }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Higgins v. Karp}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 706 A.2d 1, 5 (Conn. 1998).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Furthermore, a mandate cannot be applied in a vacuum, and must be interpreted in light of the appellate court}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s opinion.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Haeuser}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 2002 Guam 8 at }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  17 (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [T]he lower court must implement both the letter and spirit of the mandate, taking into account the appellate court}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s opinion and the circumstances it embraces.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ) (citation omitted); }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 McDonough v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 968 S.W.2d 771, 773 (Mo. Ct. 
App. 1998) (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The first opinion is part of the mandate and must be used to interpret the mandate itself.}
{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ); }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Bower v. D}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Onfro}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 696 A.2d 1285, 1290 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997) (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 In carrying out a mandate . . . the trial court is limited to the specific direction of the mandate as interpreted }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
in light of the opinion}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ) (omission in original) (citation omitted);}
{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Abrams}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 211 S.W.2d at 721 (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [W]henever an appellate court reverses and remands the judgment of a trial court, the appellate court does so with directions.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Those directions are determined from the mandate and the opinion of the appellate court.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ).}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Thus, in determining how to proceed on remand, the trial court must examine both the mandate and the opinion and proceed in accordance with the views expressed therein.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Haeuser}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 2002 Guam 8 at }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  17;}{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  see also Higgins}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 706 A.2d at 5; }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Inland Real Estate Corp. v. Village of Palatine}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 535 N.E.2d 42, 44 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989).}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [17]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab In this case, a determination of the type of }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 further proceedings}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
 the trial court was required to conduct on remand requires a review of the Mandate and Opinion issued in }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [T]he interpretation by an appellate court of its own mandate is properly considered a question of law, reviewable }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 de novo}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 115 F.3d 947, 950 (Fed. Cir. 1997).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Furthermore, an appellate court reviews the trial court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s actions on remand for an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Haeuser}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 2002 Guam 8 at }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  10}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 (citing }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See In re Marriage of Blinderman,}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  669 N.E.2d 687, 694 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)); }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
R.J.M. v. State, Dept. of Health and Social Services, }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 973 P.2d 79, 86 (Alaska 1999)).
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [18]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab The Mandate issued in }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , provided: }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ON CONSIDERATION THEREOF, it is now hereby ordered and adjudged by this court that this appeal from the Superior Court of Guam is }{
\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 REVERSED AND REMANDED}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  to the trial court.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House v. Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , CVA98-024 (Mandate, Nov. 20, 2000).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
The Mandate appears to be general in that it does not impart specific directions for the trial court on remand.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Associated Indus. of Missouri v. Dir. of Revenue}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 918 S.W.2d 780, 782 (Mo. 1996) (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [T]he . . . language }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
 is merely a simple reversal and remand, as opposed to a remand importing a direction of specified things.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ) (citation and quotation marks omitted).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 However, in reviewing the Opinion, it is clear that the court remanded the case for a determination of only one issue.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Specifically, in }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , the court held that pursuant to Rule 70(a), a deficiency judgment for the sale of person
al property cannot be entered without a finding that the property was resold at a fair and reasonable price.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 2000 Guam 29 at }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  9.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
The court held that because the trial court did not make such finding, Rule 52(b), which requires that the court present facts which support its decision, remained unsatisfied.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Id}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 . }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  11-12.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The appellate court was therefore precluded from conducting a meaningful review.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Id}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Based on these determinations, the court made the following pronouncement: }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 We REVERSE this decision and REMAND this case to the trial court }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ordering it to address the issue of whether the sale price was }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 fair and reasonable.}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Id}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 . }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  15 (emphasis added).}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [19]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab 
Thus, upon review of the Mandate and Opinion, it is clear that the lower court was merely required to revisit one issue on remand, specifically, whether the sale of the collateral upon repossession was }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 fair and reasonable.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053 
 }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Id}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Therefore, we reject Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s argument that because the }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  court reversed for further proceedings, the
 court was required to undertake a new trial.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Courts have found that when an appellate court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s mandate reverses for further proceedings without more specific instructions, the mandate is a general mandate which requires the trial court to conduct an entirely new trial on all the issues of fact.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See First State Bank of Bishop v. Grebe}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 162 S.W.2d 165, 168-69 (Tex. Civ. App. 1942).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
However, the instant case is distinguishable from cases where the appellate court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s mandate is purely general because the mandate in }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  specifically ordered the trial court to limit its proceeding to a particular inquiry regarding the sale price.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The mandate is therefore more properly interpreted as specific in that the lower court was required to follow the appellate court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s specific instructions to decide a particular issue and could only conduct further proceedings which were not inconsistent with the appellate court}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s opinion.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See id. }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 at 168 (recognizing that a specific mandate is one wherein the lower court is instructed to }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 do a specified thing, or enter a specific judgment, or limit its proceedings to a particular inquiry}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ); }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 A.M. v. State}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 945 P.2d 296, 300 (Alaska 1997) (footnote omitted) (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 A trial court has no authority to deviate from a specific mandate of the supreme court but may take actions not inconsistent with our decision.}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Thus, it is clear that the trial court was not required, as Ahn suggests, to conduct a trial }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 de novo}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [20]\tab }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Furthermore, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct an entirely new trial.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 A trial on Town House
}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s claim for a deficiency was fully conducted prior to }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}
{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , and Ahn did not appeal any issues related to the lower court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s deficiency judgment aside from the lower court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s failure to make a finding under Rule 70(a) of whether the sale price was fair and reasonable.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Thus, in light of Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s limited challenge to the trial court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s judgment, the only relevant issue on remand was the reasonableness of the sale price.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Turner v. Commonwealth Edison Co.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 380 N.E.2d 477, 481, 482 (Ill. Ct. App. 1978) (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [W]here a question was open to consi
deration in a prior appeal and it could have been presented but was not, the question will be deemed to be waived.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ).
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [21]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab We further reject Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s argument that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to conduct a hearing or accept additional evidence with regard to the single issue to be decided on remand.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Courts concur that if the mandate and, or, opinion specifically directs the trial court to take additional evidence or conduct a hearing, such directions must be followed by the trial court on remand.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
See R.J.M .}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 973 P.2d at 86 (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [W]e will reverse a trial court}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s refusal to receive new evidence on remand only when the refusal constitutes an abuse of discretion, }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 unless we have expressly called for a new trial or evidentiary hearing}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ) (emphasis added) (citation omitted);}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  Ruiz v. Oniate}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 806 So. 2d 81, 83 (La. Ct. App. 2001) (holding that because the appellate court did not direct the trial court to accept new evidence, the lower court on remand was not precluded from entering summary judgment on the remanded issue);}{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  Poletti v. Comm}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 r of Internal Revenue}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 351 F.2d 345, 347 (8th Cir. 1965) (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
[A]n inferior court has no authority to deviate from the mandate issued by an appellate court.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ).}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 However, absent specific directions as to how to decide the issues on remand, it is within the lower court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s discretion to determine what further proceedings are appropriate on remand.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Haeuser}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 2002 Guam 8 at }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  16 (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Proceeding simply means further judicial action; it does not necessarily mean an evidentiary hearing.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ) (citation omitted);}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  Blinderman}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 669 N.E.2d at 694 (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
When a reviewing court remands a case with instructions that are general . . . the circuit court is required to examine the appellate court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s opinion and }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 exercise its discretion}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  in determining what further proceedings would be consistent with the opinion on remand.}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ) (emphasis added);}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  R.J.M.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 973 P.2d at 86;}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  Poletti}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 351 F.2d at 348.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Furthermore, if an appellate court does not give a trial court specific directions, a t
rial court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s refusal to conduct an evidentiary hearing on remand is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Murray v. Murray}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 856 P.2d 463, 466 (Alaska 1993); }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 see also Inland Real Estate Corp.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 535 N.E.2d at 45 (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The scope of a trial court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s authority on remand should be examined on a case-by-case basis.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Slattery v. Covey & Co.}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 909 P.2d 925, 927 (Utah Ct. App. 1995).}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [22]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab In the present case, the Opinion and Mandate of }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
 did not specifically require the trial court to conduct a hearing or accept new evidence in determining whether the sale price was fair and reasonable.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Therefore, it was within the trial court}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s discretion whether to conduct such proceedings on remand.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Murray}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 856 P.2d at 466 (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Ordinarily, a remand for additional findings does not obligate the trial court to hear new evidence.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ).}
{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 In determining whether the lower court should have taken evidence or conducted a hearing on remand, we must review the issue that was remanded and determine whether the trial court}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s proceedings were appropriate considering the resolution of that issue.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Brown v. Whitaker}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 926 S.W.2d 1, 4 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996) (stating that a trial court is not required to receive new evidence on remand); }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
see also Ruiz}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 806 So.2d at 83; }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Poletti}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 351 F.2d at 348; }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Bittman v. Bittman}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 1935 WL 3287 (Ohio Ct. App. 1935).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [23]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Here, because the trial court had evidence from the trial regarding the sal
e of the furniture, including the price Ahn paid for the furniture in the Second Contract, the price Town House sold the furniture for, and the circumstances surrounding the sale, it was not necessary for the trial court to accept and consider additional 
evidence in reaching a conclusion regarding whether the sale price as fair and reasonable.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Inland Real Estate}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 535 N.E.2d at 45 (determining that because the trial court had already received evidence on this issue in the first trial and was familiar with the evidence, it was unnecessary for the trial court to accept additional evidence on remand).}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Thus, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to either conduct a hearing or accept additional evidence in determining the issue on remand.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Id}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 C.}{\b\insrsid8419053  }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Post-Trial Motions.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [24]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab The trial court denied both Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Rule 52(b) and 60(b) motions from the bench at a hearing conducted on July 23, 2001.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s decision was memorialized in an Order filed on September 14, 2001.
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [25]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Ahn argues that the trial court erred in denying his Rule 52(b) motion.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
He argues that the lower court was required to amend its findings regarding the sale price of the furniture.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Ahn further contends that the lower court erred in denying his Rule 60(b) motion.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Ahn asserts that the court was required to set aside the judgment considering that newly discovered evidence supported a finding that the underlyin
g Second Contract between the parties was procured through fraud on the part of Town House.}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [26]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Town House counters both challenges by contending that Ahn is precluded from raising these issues because all the issues Ahn raised in the Rule 52(b) and 60(
b) motions were decided prior to the first appeal, and Ahn failed to appeal them in }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Town House also argues that those issues not raised in the prior trial or on appeal in }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  could not be raised again on remand or in this appeal.
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [27]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab We review the denial of a Rule 52(b) motion for an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Lei v. Global Eng}{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 g & Maint. Servs. Corp.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, Civ No. 96-00007A, 1996 WL 875782, at *4 (D. Guam App. Div. Oct. 4, 1996).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 We similarly review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Midsea Indus., Inc. v. HK Eng}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 g, Ltd.}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 1998 Guam 14,}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  4.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or where the record contains no evidence on which the judge could have rationally based the decision.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Brown v. Eastman Kodak Co.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 2000 Guam 30, }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  11 (citation omitted).
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [28]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab In denying Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s two motions, the lower court made the following conclusions:}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [First], [t]he Court finds that many of the arguments raised in these two motions were previously raised in the defendant}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s motion for a new trial, which has already been denied by the Court.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [Second,] [t]o the extent that defendant raises new arguments, the Court finds that these issues are barred, in that defendant failed to raise them on defendant}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s prior appeal to the Supreme Court of Guam in this matter.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par Appellant}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Excerpts of Record, pp. 119-20 (Order Den. Def.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Post-Trial Mots., Sept. 14, 2001).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
We interpret this to mean that the trial court found its reasons supporting its prior denial of Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s new trial motion to likewise support a denial of similar contentions raised in his Rule 52(b) and 60(b) motions; and that the court declined to reconsider its prior decision.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
 Furthermore, in his Rule 52(b) motion, Ahn argued that the trial court erred in determining that the collateral was sold for 60 cents on the dollar.  Ahn contended that the collateral w
as sold for 33 cents on the dollar, and that the judgment should be amended accordingly.  At a hearing on his post-trial motions, the lower court rejected this argument, and found that even accepting Ahn}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s figure of approximately 30 cents on the dollar, the collateral was nonetheless sold for a fair and reasonable price.  This ruling will be discussed later in the Opinion.  
}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [29]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab In reviewing whether the trial court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s prior rationale for denying Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s new trial motion formed an adequate basis for denying his Rule 52(b) and 60(b) motions, we must first review the issues raised in all three motions.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [30]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab In his new trial motion, Ahn presented the following arguments: (1) the Second Contract included amounts for furniture Ahn never received from Town House; (2) Buzz Shiroma}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s testimony did not reflect inventory that was still in Lade
ra, and therefore, the amounts received from the sale did not reflect this furniture which Town House essentially gave to LG Construction for free; accordingly, Town House only received 33 cents on the dollar for the sale of the furniture; (3) Town House}
{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s attorney misled the court to believe that Town House sold the furniture for 60 cents on the dollar, as opposed to 33 cents on the dollar; (4) Buzz Shiroma gave perjured testimony regarding the cost to deliver th
e furniture to Ladera; and (5) Buzz Shiroma misled the court in}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 testifying that it would be difficult to remove the vertical blinds in the hotel.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn 
{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  Record on Appeal, tab 64 (Reply Mem., Aug. 14, 1998).}{
\insrsid7889458   }}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  }{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  Although we do not have a copy of the motion in the record, we do have Ahn}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid7889458 s Reply to Town House}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
s Opposition to the new trial motion.  The arguments listed above were presented in Ahn}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
s Reply.  Furthermore, in its order denying the motion, the lower court address these arguments.}{\insrsid7889458     }}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The trial court denied Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Motion for a New Trial in a Decision and Order filed on September 2, 1998.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  Record on Appeal, tab 75 (Decision & Order, Sept. 2, 1998).}}}{\insrsid7889458 

\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [31]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab In his Rule 52(b) motion for amended and additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, Ahn made the following arguments: (1) the deficiency judgment rep
resented amounts for furniture that Town House never delivered to Ahn; (2) Buzz Shiroma delivered perjured testimony regarding the cost to deliver the furniture to Ladera Towers; (3) Town House}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s counsel erroneou
sly understated to the court the value of the repossessed furniture, which in turn led the court to erroneously find that the furniture was sold for 60 cents on the dollar, as opposed to the true amount of 33 cents on the dollar; and (4) Buzz Shiroma misl
ed the court when he testified that it would be difficult to remove the vertical blinds from Ladera Towers.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  Record on Appeal, tab 121 (Mem. in Supp. of Mot., June 5, 2001).}{\insrsid7889458   }}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 

\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [32]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Finally, in his motion to set aside the judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) and
 60(b)(3), Ahn raised the following points: (1) Town House fraudulently included in the Second Contract price a total of $37,941.49 for furniture which was never delivered to Ahn; (2) in its sale to LG Construction, Town House included a total of $28,000 
w
orth of furniture which was not included in the original inventory list and was therefore given to LG Construction for free; (3) Town House sold new furniture in the model units as used furniture, and taking the value of the furniture as new, Town House r
e
ceived only 33 cents on the dollar for the furniture; (4) Buzz Shiroma gave false testimony that Town House spent between $40,000 to $50,000 to deliver and assemble the furniture in Ladera; and (5) Town House erroneously led the court to believe that at t
he time of the sale to LG Construction, the furniture was only worth $370,213.71, as opposed to $455,213.71, and therefore, Town House misled the court to believe that the furniture was sold for 60 cents on the dollar.}{
\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
 Record on Appeal, tab 111 (Memo. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. for Leave to Vacate & Set Aside J. & to File an Am. Answer & Countercls. for Fraud, June 29, 1999).}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [33]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Upon review of all three motions, it is evident that the allegations Ahn raised in support of his Rule 52(b) 
and 60(b) motions were previously raised by Ahn in support of his motion for a new trial filed prior to his appeal in }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Accordingly, the trial court did in fact previously consider and reject these contentions.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Although the trial court rejected Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s arguments as supporting a new trial, the trial court }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 did not}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  reject Ahn}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s contentions as they relate to a motion to amend findings under Rule 52(b) or a motion
 to set-aside judgment under Rule 60(b).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Consequently, we must review whether the trial court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s former denial of Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s contentio
ns also support a denial of his later Rule 52(b) and 60(b) motions.}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 1.}{\b\insrsid8419053  }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Rule 52(b).}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [34]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Under Rule 52(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court may amend its findings and conclusions, and amend the judgment should that be req
uired. Guam R. Civ. P. 52(b)}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }
{\fs20\insrsid7889458  Rule 52(b) provides: }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
(b) Amendment. Upon motion of a party made not later than 10 days after entry of judgment, the court may amend its findings or make additional findings and may
 amend the judgment accordingly.  The motion may be made with a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59.}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458   GRCP 52(b).}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ; }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Fontenot v. Mesa Petroleum Co.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986) (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 A party may move to amend the findings of fact even if the modified or additional findings in effect reverse the judgment.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 A motion to amend under Rule 52(b) is intended }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 to correct manifest errors of law or fact or, in some limited situations, to present newly discovered evidence.}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Fontenot}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 791 F.2d at 1219 (citing }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Evans, Inc. v. Tiffany & Co.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 416 F. Supp. 224, 244 (N.D. Ill. 1976)); }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Nat}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 l Metal Finishing Co. v. Barclays/American Commercial, Inc.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 899 F.2d 119, 123-24 n.2 (1st Cir. 1990) (recognizing that frequently articulated grounds for granting a Rule 52(b) motion include }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 manifest error of law or fact,}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 newly discovered evidence,}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  and }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 an intervening change in the law.}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Motions made under Rule 52(b) }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
are not intended merely to relitigate old matters nor are such motions intended to allow the parties to present the case under new theories.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Evans, Inc.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 416 F. Supp. at 244 (reciting this standard for both a motion to amend under Rule 52(b) and Rule 59(e)).}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Furthermore, a motion to amend under Rule 52(b), which seeks to introduce new evidence, }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 closely approaches a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence . . . .}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  }{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{
\insrsid7889458  }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 A new trial may be granted pursuant to Rule 59(a), which provides:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid7889458 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid7889458 (a) Grounds. A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues . . . (2) in an 
action tried without a jury, for any of the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted on suits in equity in the courts of Guam. On a motion for a new trial in an action tried without a jury, the court may open the judgment if one has been 
entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new findings and conclusions, and direct the entry of a new judgment.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid7889458 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid7889458 GRCP 59(a) (1995).}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Morris Iron & Steel Co. v. Charal Metal Co.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 1986 WL 12463, *1 (E.D. Pa. 1986) (quoting 6A J}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 AMES}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  WM. M}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 OORE}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , M}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 OORE}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 S}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  F}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 EDERAL}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  P}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 RACTICE}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  59.04) (recognizing that a motion for a new trial is subject to more stringent standards than a Rule 52(b) motion).}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  Moreover, Rule 52(b) contemplates that a motion under the Rule }{
\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 be made with a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59.}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458   GRCP 52(b).}{\insrsid7889458   }}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Similar to a 
motion for a new trial, a motion to amend should not be employed to introduce evidence that was available at the time of trial but was not proffered.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Fontenot}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 791 F.2d at 1219; }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Diaz v. Methodist Hosp.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 46 F.3d 492, 495 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing the standards for granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence).}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 In fact, evidence which could have been proffered is not considered newly discovered for purposes of Rule 52(b).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Hollis v. City of Buffalo}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 189 F.R.D. 260, 263 (W.D.N.Y. 1999) (denying the plaintiff}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s Rule 52(b) motion because }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [t]he information plaintiff s[ought] to use to amend the court}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s findings was available to plaintiff prior to trial}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  and was thus not }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 newly discovered evidence}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ).}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qj \fi2160\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 a.}{\b\insrsid8419053  }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Newly Discovered Evidence.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [35]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Of the four arguments Ahn presented in his Rule 52(b) motion, three allege newly discovered evidence.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  These include Ahn}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s argument
s that (1) the deficiency judgment represented amounts for furniture that Town House never delivered to Ahn; (2) Mr. Buzz Shiroma delivered perjured testimony regarding the cost to deliver the furniture to Ladera Towers; and (3) Mr. Shiroma misled the cou
rt when he testified that it would be difficult to remove the vertical blinds from Ladera Towers.  Record on Appeal, tab 121 (Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Additional Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law, June 5, 2001).}{\insrsid7889458   }}}{\insrsid8419053 
 }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 All three allegations of newly discovered evidence were raised in Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s motion for a new trial.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 In denying Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Rule 52(b) motion, the trial court relied on the reasons it gave in rejecting Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s motion for a new trial.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Thus, we must determine whether those reasons similarly supported a denial of Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Rule 52(b) motion as it related to claims of newly discovered evidence.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 In denying Ahn}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s new trial motion, the lower court found that the evidence Ahn alleged to have discovered after trial, and which Ahn argued supported a new trial, }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 was not the type of evidence which could not have been discovered prior to trial through the exercise of due diligence.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Record on Appeal, tab 75 (Decision and Order, Sept. 2, 1998).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The court also rejected Ahn}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s argument that a new trial was warranted due to perjury committed by Town House officials.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Specifically, with regard to Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s claims of perjury, the court found that Ahn }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 had ample opportunity to cross examine all of [Town House
}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s] . . . witnesses, and further had the opportunity to bring in rebuttal evidence if he thought it was necessary.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Record on Appeal, tab 75 (Decision and Order, Sept. 2, 1998).}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [36]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab We find that the trial court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s reasons for denying the motion for a new trial also supported a denial of Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s request for Rule 52(b) relief as it related to newly discovered evidence.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
First, the evidence which Ahn claims was newly discovered was the type which Ahn should have been aware of during trial, especially considering Ahn was being sued on a personal guarantee.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
The new evidence Ahn claims to have discovered was within the knowledge of either Ahn, Town House or T&K employees.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
The information Ahn himself knew at the time of trial, such as the fact that Town House lied about the cost to deliver the furniture to Ladera, is not newly discovered evidence.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Fontenot}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 791 F.2d at 1219 (stating that a motion to alter or amend should not be employed to introduce evidence available at the time of trial); }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Hollis}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 189 F.R.D. at 263.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 As for the information within the knowledge of Town House and T&K employees, it is evident that, c
onsidering the nature of the issues being litigated, a litigant exercising due diligence would contact these individuals prior to trial.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Fontenot}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 791 F.2d at 1219;}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  Hollis}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 189 F.R.D. at 263; }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Diaz}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 46 F.3d at 496 (rejecting the appellant}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s argument that she had no reason to question the veracity of the witness}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  statements at trial, and stating that }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [w]hile cognizant of Appellant}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s trusting nature, we believe a prudent litigant would independently investigate such a pivotal issue and be less than willing to adopt blindly the statements of the opposing party}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ).}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [37]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab 
Because the alleged newly discovered evidence could have been discovered prior to trial, it is not the type of evidence which support an amendment to the findings and conclusions under Rule 52(b).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
See Diaz}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 46 F.3d at 496.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Accordingly, we find that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying those portions of Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Rule 52(b) motion.}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }\pard \qj \fi2160\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 b.}{\b\insrsid8419053  }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Value of the Collateral.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [38]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Furthermore, Ahn presented one argumen
t in his Rule 52(b) motion which was not based on newly discovered evidence; but rather, alleged that a particular finding did not represent the evidence already in the record.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Specifically, Ahn claimed that Town House}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s counsel erroneously understated to the court the value of the repossessed furniture, which in turn led the court to erroneously find that the furniture was sold for 60 cents on the dollar, as opposed to the true amount of 33 cents on the dollar.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Ahn argues that based upon the evidence in the record, the trial court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s finding that the furniture was worth $370,213.71 was erroneous and that the furniture was actually valued at $455,213.71.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Further, it is evident that Ahn}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s argument regarding the court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s error was presented to effectuate a change in the judgment.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
Transcript, vol. II, pp. 6-8 (Mot. for Amended & Additional Findings of Facts & Conclusions of Law, July 23, 2001) (arguing that the court}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid7889458 s decision and order improperly cited the sale price as being 60 cents on the dollar, that the price should really have been 33 cents on the dollar, or based on the court}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s figures, 35 or 42 cents on the dollar, thereby warranting an amendment to reflect the correct figures, and an amendment to the judgment in favor of Ahn).}{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 
  }}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [39]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab At the July 23, 2001 hearing, the trial court rejected Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}
}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s argument on a separate ground not articulated in its September 14, 2001 Decision and Order.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
The trial court found that even assuming Ahn was correct that Town House sold the furniture for 33 cents on the dollar, Town House}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s actions in selling the furniture were fair and reasonable.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
Transcript, vol. II, p. 41 (Mot. for Amended & Additional Findings of Facts & Conclusions of Law, July 23, 2001).}{\insrsid7889458   }}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 This was based on the court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s finding that
 Town House could not have sold the furniture to any party other than LG Construction considering the facts previously found by the court.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
Transcript, vol. II, p. 41 (Mot. for Amended & Additional Findings of Facts & Conclusions of Law, July 23, 2001).}{\insrsid7889458   }}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [40]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab The issue is whether the lower court abused its discretion in rejecting Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Rule 52(b) motion with regard to the resale price.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 This requires an analysis of two matters: (1) whether the court was cor
rect in concluding that the collateral was sold for 60 cents on the dollar; and (2) whether the court was correct in finding that even accepting Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s figures, the collateral was nonetheless sold for a fair and reasonable price.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [41]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Rule 70(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides: }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 No deficiency judgment after repossession of personal property shall be granted unless it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court by proper evidence that said property was resold for a fair and reasonable price.}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 GRCP 70(a).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
As is mentioned in the source comment to the Rule, and as was recognized in }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , Rule 70(a) is derived locally and has no counterpart in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 2000 Guam 29 at }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  9.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 A trial court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s finding that the re-sale price is }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 fair and reasonable}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  under Rule 70(a) is a finding of fact reviewed for clear error.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote 
\pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  This court has not had occasion to di
scuss the standard of review for determinations made under Rule 70(a).  We note, however, that under the Uniform Commercial Code, as enacted in Guam prior to the recent amendments found in P.L. 26-172 (repealed and reenacted Jan. 5, 2003), a deficiency ju
dgment could only be awarded if the collateral was sold in a fair and reasonable manner.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 Title 13 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458  9504(3) (1993); }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 see Bank of Guam v. Del Priore}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 , 2001 Guam 10, }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid7889458  10.  A finding on commercial reasonableness is a factual finding and is reviewed for clear error.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 Fed. Finance Co. v. Papadopoulos}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
, 721 A.2d 501, 503 (Vt. 1998) (reviewing a lower court}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s finding of commercial reasonableness for clear error); }{
\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 see also Havins v. First Nat}{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 l Bank}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 , 919 S.W.2d 177, 181 (Tex. App. 1996); }
{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 Hall v. Owen County State Bank}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 , 370 N.E.2d 918, 929 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977).  One factor of commercial reasonableness is the reasonableness of the priced received upon disposition of the collateral.  }{
\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See Hall}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 , 370 N.E.2d at 929; }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 In re estate of Sagmiller}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 , 615 N.W.2d 567, 569 (N.D. 2000).  It follows that a determination regarding the reasonableness of the sa
le price in determining commercial reasonableness is similarly a question of fact.}{\insrsid7889458   }}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Nissan Motor Corp. v. Sea Star Group Inc.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 2002 Guam 5, }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  6 (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 A lower court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ); }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
cf. Fed. Fin. Co. v. Papadopoulos}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 721 A.2d 501, 503 (Vt. 1998) (reviewing a lower court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s finding of commercial reasonableness for clear error).
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [42]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Here, Ahn alleges that the furniture was worth $455,213.71.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
The trial court found that the furniture was worth $370,213.71, which was based upon its finding that the figure represented the parties}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}
{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  agreement as to the furniture}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s worth at the time of the Second Contract.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 Record on Appeal, tab 44, p. 2 (Decision & Order, June 30, 1998); Record on Appeal, tab 119, p. 6 (Disision Yan Otden, May 21, 2002).  }}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [43]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab We find that the trial court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s determination regarding the furniture}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s value was erroneous.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 There is nothing in the record which indicates that the parties actually agreed that the amount of $370,213.71 represented the value of all the furniture at the time of repossession and sale.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 In fact, we could find little testimony at trial regarding the value of the furniture at Ladera Towers.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 To the extent that the trial court}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s determination that the collateral was worth $370,213.71 is based upon the fact that the Second Contract was entered into for $370,213.71, the court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s determination regarding the value of the furniture was erroneous.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
The amount owed under the Second Contract was $370,213.71, which represented $268,856.73 still owing under the 
First Contract, $9,697.00 for deliveries made after the First Contract, $65,745.67 for furniture loaned to Ladera Towers for their model units, and $25,914.31 in finance charges.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 Appellant}{
\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s Excerpts of Record, pp. 1-2 (Pl.}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s Ex. 2); Appellant}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s Excerpts of Record, p. 3 (Pl.}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s Ex. 4); Record on Appeal, tab 1, (Pl.}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid7889458 s Complaint, Ex. 1, Sales Contract).}{\insrsid7889458   }}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
The amount Ahn initially contracted for under the Second Contract does not necessarily represent the market value of all the furniture either at the time of the Second Contract or the time of repossession and sale.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 In fact, the $370,213.71 figure does not take into account payments of $85,000.00 made under the First Contract, which represented amounts expended for furniture which were not included in the Second Contract.}{
\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  }{
\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 Appellant}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s Excerpts of Record, p. 1, (Pl.}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s Ex. 2).}{\insrsid7889458   }}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Furthermore, we have not found much in the record which serves as evidence regarding the market value of the repossessed furniture.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Thus, the trial court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s reliance on the $370,213.71 figure as the value of the furniture was not supported by the evidence.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s findings of fact on this issue was erroneous. 
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [44]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab However, as stated earlier, the lower court found that even accepting Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s figure, the furniture was nonetheless sold in accordance with the requirements of Rule 70(a).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 We agree.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 We find that the lower court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s error with regard to the value of the furniture did not require the court to amend its conclusions of law and its judgment. 
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [45]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab First, we note Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s contention that the furniture was sold for 33 cents on the dollar.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The evidence in the record does not support this conclusion.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Ahn}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s figure represents his allegation that the furniture was worth $455,213.71.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 However, Ahn himself admits that of that amount, only $404,266.67 was for the furniture, and $50,947.04 was for the cost of financing.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Therefore, at most, assuming the furniture was sold to Ahn for its fair market value and did not depreciate at all between the time of sale to Ahn and the time of the repossession and re-sale to LG Construction; based on Ahn}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s statements, the furniture was only worth $404,266.67.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 If the furniture was worth that amount and was sold for $150,000.00, then the furniture was sold for, at most, approximately 37 cents on the dollar.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
We find that even if the lower court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s factual findings were amended to reflect a value of $404,266.67, the new figure would not render clearly erroneous the court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s ultimate conclusion that Town House sold the furniture for a fair and reasonable price.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [46]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab 
It is evident that because the Guam legislature enacted a separate rule requiring a specific finding regarding the reasonableness of sale price, the legislature felt it necessary that, in addition to a finding of commercial reasonableness, all sales of co
llateral upon repossession be scrutinized with regard to the re-sale price.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 2000 Guam 29 at }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  8-9 (rejecting Town House}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s argument that the trial court's finding that the resale price was }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 commercially reasonable}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  satisfies a finding under Rule 70(a), and holding that }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Rule 70(a) operates to increase the importance of the price received in the final analysis of granting a deficiency judgment.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Aside from }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Town House I}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ,}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
there are no cases in this jurisdiction which discuss Rule 70(a), and there are consequently no cases which discuss the factors a court must consider in determining whether the re-sale price was }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 fair and reasonable}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  under Rule 70(a).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Though not determinative, the resale price of collateral is one factor in determining commercial reasonableness under Title 13 GCA }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  9504(3)}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  Title 13 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458  9504(3) was recently amended by P.L. 26-172, which adopts the Revised Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code in Guam.  Like the requirement under 13 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458  9504(3), all sales of the collateral under the Revised Article 9 must be conducted in a commercially reasonable manner.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 
See }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 P.L. 26-172 (repealed and reenacted Jan. 5, 2003), Exhibit A, Section 9-610(b) (}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 Every aspect of
 a disposition of collateral . . . must be commercially reasonable.}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 )}{\insrsid7889458   }}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .
}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Hall}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 370 N.E.2d at 929; }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 see also }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Title 13 GCA }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  9507(2) (1993)}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  Prior to its recent ame
ndment by P.L. 26-172, this section provided in relevant part: }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
The fact that a better price could have been obtained by a sale at a different time or in a different method from that selected by the secured party is not of itself sufficient to establish that the sale was not made in a commercially reasonable manner.}{
\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458   Title 13 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid7889458  9507(2) (1993).  Section 9-627(a) of the Revised Article 9 similarly provides: }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
The fact that a greater amount could have been obtained . . . is not of itself sufficient to preclude the secured party from establishing that the  . . . disposition . . . was made in a commercially reasonable manner.}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458   }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 P.L. 26-172 (repealed and reenacted Jan. 5, 2003), Exhibit A, Section 9-627(a). }}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Accordingly, cases discussing the r
easonableness of the price in the context of secured transactions are useful guides in determining whether the price was fair and reasonable under Rule 70(a).
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [47]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab A finding regarding the reasonableness of the price received upon disposition of collateral depends on the particular facts of a case.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Cf. Hall}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 370 N.E.2d at 929 (acknowledging that a determination of commercial reasonableness is highly dependent on the circumstances of a particular case).}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 In determining reasonableness, it is important to compare the value of the collateral with the amount received upon the sale.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Papadopoulos}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 721 A.2d at 504 (upholding the lower court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s determination that a bid of $1,000 for pizza equipment sold to the debtor for $20,000 was one factor indicating that the sale was }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 not}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  commercially reasonable).}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Courts have held that a commercially reasonable price was realized from sales which yielded 62%, 50%, or 46% on the dollar, or }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 where the beneficial interest had a fair market value of $55,000 but sold for only $3,500.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Ryder v. Bank of Hickory Hills}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 612 N.E.2d 19, 23 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (citing other cases in the jurisdiction in 
holding that a yield of 46% on the dollar was not commercially unreasonable).
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [48]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Furthermore, in analyzing the reasonableness of the sale price under Rule 70(a), we find that courts should consider the nature of the collateral, and take in
to account whether the collateral at issue is more properly sold in a particular manner even if it would not yield the best price.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
For instance, sales which bypass added costs for advertising, insurance, or reconditioning of the collateral are sometimes favored, as these costs may result in }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 higher storage expenses and a higher interest accrual under the original obligation}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Hall}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 370 N.E.2d at 930 (determining th
at it may be more reasonable for creditors to sell the collateral wholesale as opposed to retail because the latter often generates considerable additional expenses).
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [49]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab In the present case, assuming that Town House sold the furniture to LG Construction for 37 cents on the dollar, we agree that the collateral was sold for a }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 fair and reasonable}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  price.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Here, there is evidence in the record that indicates that given th
e nature and volume of the collateral at issue, Town House sold the furniture in the most logical and cost-conscious manner.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
Transcript, vol. I, pp. 62-64, 65 (Bench Trial, May 27, 1998) (Buzz Shiroma testifying that based on the volume of furniture, it would be difficult to find an individual or firm to purchase it).  }}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Additionally, because the furniture was already in Ladera Towers, it was even more logical to sell the furniture to the new owners of Ladera.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 Transcript, vol. I
, pp. 62-64, 65 (Bench Trial, May 27, 1998) (Buzz Shiroma testifying that because the furniture was used, hotels would not be interested in purchasing the furniture.)  }}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
In fact, there is testimony in the record which reveals that Ahn himself recommended that Town House sell the furniture to LG Construction.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Further, the furniture was used; therefore, it is not unexpected that Town House would be unable to collect prices reflective of new furniture.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Horney v. Hayes}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 142 N.E.2d 94, 97 (Ill. 1957) (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
It has long been recognized that property does not bring its full value at forced sales, and that price depends upon many circumstances from which the debtor must expect to suffer a loss.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Finally, considering the amount of furniture, even if sales to individual consumers may have yielded a higher price, that price would not likely yield a lower deficiency judgment at the end of the day.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Town House would likely have incurred considerable extra expenses, such as moving costs, storage costs, insurance, etc., in selling all the furniture.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 See }{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
Transcript, vol. I, pp. 62-67 (Bench Trial, May 27, 1998) (Buzz Shiroma testifying that removal of the furniture would produce considerable moving and storage expenses, and would subject the furniture to damage which would decrease its value).}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [50]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Overall, under the circumstances of this case, even assuming Town House only received 37 cents on the dollar, there was enough evidence in the record to support the lower court
}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s finding that the sale price was fair and reasonable considering the nature of the collateral.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Thus, we find that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Rule 52(b) motion to amend its conclusions of law and, ultimately, its judgment, with regard to this issue.
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 2.}{\b\insrsid8419053  }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Rule 60(b) Motion.}{\b\insrsid7889458 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [51]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab The next issue is whether the lower court erred in denying Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Rule 60(b) motion based on the same reasons for denying Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s motion for a new trial.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Specifically, we must review whether the grounds the lower court asserted in denying Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s new trial motion similarly support a denial of Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Rule 60(b) motion.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  We note that Ahn}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid7889458 s Rule 60(b) motion sought to set aside the judgment entered on September 15, 1998.  However, the deficiency judgment was reversed by this court in }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 Town House I}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
.  Thus, the lower court could not properly consider whether the judgment could be set aside, as the judgment was effectively set aside by virtue of }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 Town House I}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 .  However, as provided earlier, }{
\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 Town House I}{\fs20\insrsid7889458  did not reverse all findings of the trial court, but rather, reversed the judgment to the extent that it did not include a finding of whether the sale 
price was fair and reasonable as required by Rule 70(a).  Thus, we treat the lower court}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s consideration of Ahn}{
\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s Rule 60(b) motion as a motion to reconsider those aspects of the judgment which remained unaffected by this court}{
\fs20\insrsid7889458 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 s reversal in }{\i\fs20\insrsid7889458 Town House I}{\fs20\insrsid7889458 
.  Furthermore, to the extent that Ahn raised his Rule 60(b) motion in relation to the Judgment filed on June 14, 2001, we find that the lower court properly denied the motion for the reasons set forth in this Opinion.}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 

\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [52]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Ahn brought his Rule 60(b) motion under 60(b)(1) and (b)(3).}{\cs15\super\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7889458 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7889458  Rule 60(b) provides: 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid7889458 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid7889458 (b) Mistakes, I
nadvertence, Excusable Neglect, Newly 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: (1) 
m
istake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), 
m
isrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or if it is no longer equit
able that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from operation of the judgment.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid7889458 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid7889458 Guam R. Civ. P. 60(b).}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) allows a judgment to be set aside based upon }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 GRCP 60(b)(1).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Under Rule 60(b)(3), a judgment may be set aside for }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 fraud (
whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 GRCP 60(b)(3).
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [53]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab As stated earlier, Ahn made the following allegations in
 his Rule 60(b) motion: (1) Town House included in the sale price furniture which was never given to Ahn; (2) Town House included in the sale to LG furniture which was not listed; (3) Town House delivered perjured testimony regarding the cost to deliver t
he furniture to Ladera; (4) Town House should have sold the furniture in the model units as new as opposed to used furniture; and (5) Town House}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s counsel erroneously told the court that the value of the furniture was $370,213.71.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Essentially, Ahn claimed that new evidence showed perjury on the part of Town House.}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [54]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s arguments alleging perjury and misrepresentation arguably implicated Rule 60(b)(3).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 In its order denying Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s new trial motion, the lower court rejected Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s claims that new evidence showed perjury on the part of Town House.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The court found that Ahn could hav
e discovered the alleged perjury during cross-examination of the Town House officials at trial.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The question is whether this was a proper ground to reject a motion made under Rule 60(b)(3).}{
\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [55]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab To set aside a judgment for fraud under Rule 60(b)(3), the trial court must determine whether the movant has }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 (1) prove[n] by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct, and (2) establish[ed] that the 
conduct complained of prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Guam Bar Ethics Comm. v. Maquera}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 2001 Guam 20, }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  35 (quoting }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 921 F.2d 875, 878-79 (9th Cir. 1990)) (internal brackets omitted); }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
see also Diaz}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 46 F.3d at 496;}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  Rozier v. Ford Motor Co.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 573 F.2d 1332, 1339 (5th Cir. 1978);}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
 Atkinson v. Prudential Prop. Co}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ., 43 F.3d 367, 372-73 (8th Cir. 1994);}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  England v. Doyle}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 281 F.2d 304, 309-10 (9th Cir. 1960).}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The purpose of Rule 60(b)(3) }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
is to afford parties relief from judgments which are unfairly obtained, not those which may be factually incorrect.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Diaz}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 46 F.3d at 496; }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 see Maquera}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 2001 Guam 20 at }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  35 (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
The rule is aimed at judgments which are unfairly obtained, not at those which are factually incorrect.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
[T]he introduction of perjured testimony or false documents in a fully litigated case constitutes intrinsic . . . fraud.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Kachig v. Boothe}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 99 Cal. Rptr. 393, 398 (Ct. App. 1971).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
A judgment should be set aside under Rule 60(b)(3), and a new trial granted, if }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 evidence establis
hes that a party willfully perjured himself, and thereby prevented the opposition from fully and fairly presenting its case.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Diaz}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 46 F.3d at 497.
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [56]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Several courts have held that if the new evidence of perju
ry could have been discovered with due diligence, then a party is not prevented from fully and fairly presenting his case and, therefore, he is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(3).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See id. }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 at 497; }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Dixon v. C.I.R.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 77 T.C.M. (CCH) 1630, 1999 WL 171398 (T.C. 1999) (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The very purpose of a trial is to test the truthfulness of testimony and other evidence proffered by the parties. Examining the possibility that testimony is 
perjurious is one of the principal functions of cross-examination. . . . Rule 60(b) should not reward the lazy litigant who did not adequately investigate his or her case, or who did not vigorously cross-examine a witness.}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  (citing 12 J}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 AMES }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 WM. M}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 OORE}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , M}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ORRE}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 S}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  F}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 EDERAL}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  P}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 RACTICE}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  60.43[1][c] (3d ed.1998)) (omission in original); }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
see also Moore v. Jacobs}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 752 So. 2d 1013, 1018 (Miss. 1999) (agreeing that because the movant had access to the information at the time of trial, he failed to show that he was unable to fully and fairly present his case) (citing }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Diaz}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 46 F.3d at 498); }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Karak v. Bursaw Oil Corp.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 288 F.3d 15, 21 (1st Cir. 2002) (holding that the movant}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s failure to take advantage of the }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 panoply of pretrial discovery devices}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
 which would have uncovered the alleged misstatements by witnesses supported a finding that the movant was not prevented from fully and fairly presenting his case).}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [57]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab In }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Diaz v. Methodist Hospital}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , the appellant alleged that she discovered new ev
idence suggesting that two doctors perjured themselves when they testified at trial that blood testing could not be conducted during the weekends.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Diaz}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 46 F.3d at 495.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 In addition to arguing for a new trial, the appellant argued that a post-trial affida
vit which directly contradicted statements made by the appellants amounted to perjury which warranted relief under Rule 60(b)(3).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Id}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 . at 496.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 The new affidavit offered evidence that the blood testing was available on the weekends.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Id}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 . at 496-97.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 This directly contradicted the testimony proffered by two witnesses (Drs. Williams and Bradshaw) that such testing was not available on the weekends.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
On appeal, the court determined that the new affidavit, which contradicted the statements presented at trial, }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 at most, . . . creates a factual dispute over whether the [appellant] was capable of performing amenoglycoside blood serum testing on weekends in January 1987.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Appellant}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s new evidence does not conclusively establish that Drs. Bradshaw and Williams intentionally perjured themselves.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Id}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 . at 497.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Furthermore, the court held that because the information contained in the post-t
rial affidavit was not solely in the control of the appellees, the appellant could have discovered it prior to trial and therefore, even assuming the appellees}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  witnesses delivered perjured testimony, the appellant was not prevented from fully and fairly presenting her case by such perjury.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See id}
{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par [58]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Following the rationale of the }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Diaz}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  court, we find that the lower court did not err in denying Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Rule 60(b) motion on the ground that Ahn could have discovered this evidence earlier and could have revealed it during trial.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Because the new evidence of perjury was not solely within the knowledge of Town House, Ahn could have discovered it prior to
 the issuance of the judgment and was therefore not prevented by this alleged misrepresentation from fully and fairly presenting his case.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See id}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .; }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 see also Karak}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 288 F.3d at 21-22 (determining that the appellant was not prevented from fully and fairly preparing his case because his }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
pursuit of the truth was [not] hampered by anything except his own reluctance to undertake an assiduous investigation (including pretrial discovery)}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 );}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  Gov}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
t Fin. Servs. One Ltd. v. Peyton Place, Inc}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ., 62 F.3d 767, 773 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that notwithstanding the opposing party}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s failure to turn over a requested document at trial, the movant was not prevented from fully and fairly presenting his case because the document was available to the movant at trial).}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 But cf.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Harre v. A.H. Robins Co.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 750 F.2d 1501, 1505 (11th Cir. 1985)
 (holding that a failure to discover perjury during cross-examination does not necessarily preclude relief under Rule 60(b)(3)), }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 rev}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 d on other grounds}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 886 F.2d 1303.}{\insrsid7889458 
\par }{\insrsid8419053\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [59]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Moreover, a movant is only entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(3) if he shows by clear and convincing evidence that the judgment was procured by fraud.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 A showing which reveals a conflict of evidence is not enough to justify relief; rather, the movant carries the burden of showing clear and convincing evidence that a witness perjured himself.}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Karak}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 288 F.3d at 20.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
All five arguments that Ahn alleged in his motion for relief, at most, establish a conflict in the evidence, and not that Town House clearly delivered false testimony.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See id. }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 at 21 (determining that one witness}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
 affidavit merely showed a conflict in the evidence, and did not }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
clearly and convincingly show that [other witnesses] . . . intentionally misrepresented pertinent facts,}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  as required for relief under Rule 60(b)(3)).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 As such, Ahn failed to meet the first prong of the test for relief under Rule 60(b)(3), and therefore, the trial court}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s denial of Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s 60(b) motion for the reasons given in denying Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s new trial motion was not in error.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Id}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [60]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Finally, it is evident that Ahn did not make any specific claims which would support relief under Rule 60(b)(1).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Relief under Rule 60(b)(1) is not available when the alleged mistake is }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
the failure of a party to introduce certain evidence at trial which was then known and available to that party.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Devault Mfg. Co. v. Jefferson Bank}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 4 B.R. 382, 386 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1980).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Furthermore, a party}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s attempt to establish that a witness}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  testimony was incorrect does not qualify for relief from judgment on the basis of }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 accident or surprise}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
 where the movant had ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness on the issue.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Kolstad v. United States}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
, 262 F.2d 839, 842-43 (9th Cir. 1959) (affirming the lower court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s denial of the appellant}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Rule 60(b)).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [61]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab As discussed previously, the evidence which Ahn claims reveals fraud was within the knowledge of Ahn, or ascertainable by Ahn prior to the trial through dilige
nt pre-trial investigation.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Thus, Ahn could have brought the alleged misrepresentations out during cross-examination.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Accordingly, because the case appears to have been }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 fully and fairly tried,}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  we find no error in the lower court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s denial of Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s motion based on Rule 60(b)(1).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Id}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 .
\par }{\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [62]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab Overall, we hold that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) or Rule 60(b)(3).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Accordingly, the lower court did not abuse its discretion
 in denying Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s request to amend its complaint made in conjunction with his Rule 60(b) motion based on mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, and fraud.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 In order to be granted leave to amend, the movant mus
t first satisfy the criteria to set aside a judgment.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 See Firestone v. Firestone}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996); }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 see also}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Cooper v. Shumway}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 780 F.2d 27, 29 (10th Cir. 1985) (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [O]nce judgment is entered the filing of an amended complaint is not permissible until judgment is set aside or vacated pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or 60(b).}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ); }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Nat}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 l Petrochemical Co. of Iran v. M/T Stolt Sheaf}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 930 F.2d 240, 245 (2d Cir. 1991) (}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Unless there is a valid basis to vacate the previously entered judgment, it would be contradictory to entertain a motion to amend the complaint.}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 ); }{\i\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Wilcox v. Reconditioned Office Sys. of Colorado}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 , 881 P.2d 398, 400-01 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).}{\insrsid8419053  }{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Because Ahn was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b), the trial court was not required to allow him leave to amend his complaint.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 IV.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8419053 {\b\insrsid8419053 
\par }{\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 [63]}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 \tab 
In light of the foregoing, we find that the trial court in fact made the appropriate finding, on remand, that the sale price was fair and reasonable as required under Rule 70(a).}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to accept additional arguments or evidence on remand in order to determine whether the sale price was fair and reasonable.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
Furthermore, the lower court properly denied Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Rul
e 52(b) motion, as it related to newly discovered evidence, as well as Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s Rule 60(b) motion.}{
\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Finally, we agree that the lower court erred in determining that Town House sold the furniture for 60 cents on the dollar.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 However, even accepting Ahn}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 
s figure regarding the value of the collateral, the new figure would not warrant a finding that the trial court committed clear error in determining that the collateral was sold for a }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 fair and reasonable}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053  price.}{\insrsid8419053  }{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 Accordingly, the lower court}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s judgment and its denial of Ahn}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 s post-trial motions are }{
\b\insrsid7889458\charrsid8419053 AFFIRMED.}{\insrsid8419053 
\par }}