{\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};}{\f37\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR;}{\f41\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020602080505020303}Baskerville Old Face;} {\f171\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f172\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f174\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f175\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;} {\f176\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f177\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f178\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f179\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);} {\f541\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR CE;}{\f542\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Cyr;}{\f544\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Greek;}{\f545\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Tur;} {\f546\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR (Hebrew);}{\f547\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR (Arabic);}{\f548\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Baltic;}{\f549\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR (Vietnamese);}} {\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0; \red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\* \cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid2230272 \rsid9508377\rsid11173507\rsid11236392}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min6}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy10\hr8\min9}{\version3}{\edmins2} {\nofpages9}{\nofwords3177}{\nofchars18113}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws21248}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1080 \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\rsidroot11173507 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid11173507 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid11173507 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid11173507 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid11173507 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\headery1440\footery1080\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid11173507\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid11173507 Pineda v. Pineda}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 , Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid11173507 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid11236392 9}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 of 12}{\insrsid11173507 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid11173507 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid11236392 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\insrsid11173507 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid11173507 \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\pararsid11236392 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\b\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 \par \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 KENNARD CRUZ PINEDA, \par }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Plaintiff-Appellant,}{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par \par vs. \par \par MARIA-THELMA PASCUAL PINEDA, \par }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Defendant-Appellee.}{\b\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 \par \par }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Supreme Court Case No. CVA04-016 \par Superior Court Case No. DM 0450-03}{\b\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 \par \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 OPINION}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 \par \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Filed: July 20, 2005}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 \par \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 2005 Guam 10}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 \par \par }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par Argued and submitted on February 18, 2005 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam \par \par \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trgaph120\trleft0\trhdr\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth5040\clshdrawnil \cellx5040\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4320\clshdrawnil \cellx9360\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid11236392 {\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par }{\ul\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 : \par Phillip Torres, }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Esq.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par Teker Torres & Teker, P.C. \par Suite 2A, 130 Aspinall Ave. \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell \par }{\ul\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Appearing for the Defendant-Appellee}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 : \par Seaton M. Woodley III, }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Esq.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par Suite 102, Tanaka Building, Route 4 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910 \par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trgaph120\trleft0\trhdr\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt \clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth5040\clshdrawnil \cellx5040\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4320\clshdrawnil \cellx9360\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 BEFORE:}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Presiding Justice}{ \cs15\super\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11173507 \chftn }{\insrsid11173507 }{ \fs20\insrsid11173507 Chief Justice F. Philip Carbullido was not available to participate in this matter. Associate Justice Tydingco-Gatewood, as the senior member of the panel, was designated as the Presiding Justice.}}}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 ; ROBERT J. TORRES, Associate Justice; and JOHN A. MANGLONA, Justice }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 .}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 \par \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, J.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 :}{\insrsid11173507 \par }{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [1]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab Plaintiff-Appellant Kennard Cruz Pineda appeals from the trial court}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s decision and order vacating the default Interlocutory and Final Judgments of Divorce granted in his favor.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Although we disagree with the trial court}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s reasoning, nevertheless, the trial court}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s vacation of the Interlocutory and Final Judgments of Divorce was proper pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 We therefore affirm. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 I.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [2]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab Kennard filed a Complaint for Divorce on June 23, 2003.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 He sought, }{ \i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 inter alia}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , an award of all the community property of the marriage.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The Complaint also stated that the most recent address for Defendant-Appellee Maria-Thelma Pascual Pineda was unknown, but that she was }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 believed to be in Hawaii.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Appellant}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s Excerpts of Record (}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 ER}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 "}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 ), tab 1 (Complaint).}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Kennard mailed the summons and complaint but they were returned, stamped:}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Returned to Sender, Attempted, Not Known.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Appellant}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s ER, tab 24 (Kennard Pineda Decl., Ex. 1 ).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Upon Kennard}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s motion, the court issued an Order for Service by Publication.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 An Alias Summons was filed on July 14, 2003 and published in the }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Pacific D aily News}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 on July 16, 2003.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 On August 27, 2003, Kennard filed a Request to Enter Default against Maria-Thelma.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Proof of publication was filed on September 18, 2003.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Kennard filed for Entry of Default on October 3, 2003.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 At the November 20, 2003 default hearing, the court granted default, and the Interlocutory and Final Judgments of Divorce were filed on November 24, 2003.}{\cs15\super\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11173507 \chftn }{\insrsid11173507 }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 The Superior Court docket sheet does not include an entry for the Interlocutory Judgment. It is unknown whether this is a clerica l error. If so, it is remedied by entering the Interlocutory Judgment on the docket. This issue is significant simply because the Interlocutory Judgment awarded the community property to Kennard. The Final Judgment does not contain any reference to an award of the community property and does not incorporate by reference the Interlocutory Judgment.}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [3]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab On April 15, 2004, Maria-Thelma, through counsel, filed a motion to vacate the divorce judgments.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The motion was made under Rule 60(b)(3), permitting the trial court to vacate judgments if procured by fraud, and Rule 60(b)(4) for vacating judgments which are void.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Maria-Thelma stated that she had never received a complaint, summons or judgment regarding the divorce proceedings, and that if she had received notice, she would have retained counsel to protect her interests.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Kennard opposed the motion, arguing that service was proper and that the court correctly granted the default judgments. \par }{\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [4]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab A hearing on the motion to vacate was held on June 3, 2004.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The court ruled on June 25, 2004, that Kennard had satisfied the requirements, under Rule 4(e) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 14106, for service upon a party who is not found on Guam.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The court did not address Maria-Thelma}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s arguments raised with respect to Rule 60(b)(3) and (4); instead, it recognized that Rule 60(b)(6) allows a court to }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 set aside the judgment for any reason that justifies relief from the judgment.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Appellant}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s ER, tab 26 (Decision and Order, June 25, 2004).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The court found three reasons to justify setting aside the judgments; first, that the }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 record is void of any information that [Kennard] represented to the Court that a receipt of mailing the letter was served or received by [Maria-Thelma]}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 "}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 ; second, that t he court had advised Kennard that despite entry of the default, Maria-Thelma could seek a set aside and request her share of community property; and third, that the court had noted that Maria-Thelma had not been represented by counsel until after the defa ult had been entered.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Appellant}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s ER, tab 26 (Decision and Order, June 25, 2004). \par }{\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [5]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab Kennard timely filed an interlocutory appeal of the June 25, 2004 Decision and Order with this court on July 23, 2004.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 He then filed a Statement of Jurisdiction on August 2, 2004.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Maria-Thelma filed an Opposition to the Statement of Jurisdiction on August 3, 2004, and then filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on September 15, 2004.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 This court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that interlocutory jurisdiction was properly asserted.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 See}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 note 3, }{ \i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 infra}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 . \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 II.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [6]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab This court has jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 48 U.S.C. }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 1424-1(a)(2) (West, }{\scaps\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Westlaw}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 through Pub. L. 109-20 (2005)); Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 3108(b) (West}{ \scaps\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , Westlaw }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 through Guam Pub. L. 28-027 (Apr. 22, 2005)).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 We have stated that interlocutory jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 7 GCA }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 3108(b).}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Order, Sept. 16, 2004.}{\cs15\super\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11173507 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 We have recognized that the docket sheet attached to the Notice of Appeal indicates that on November 24, 2003, the Superior Court granted an Interlocutory Divorce Decree, thereby satisfying the definition of an appealable order pursuant to Title 7 GCA }{ \fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 25102(j). Order, Sept. 16, 2004. Further, we noted that the docket sheet further revealed that the Final Judgment of Divorce was granted on Nov ember 24, 2003, and entered on the docket on March 16, 2004; therefore, the June 25, 2004 Decision and Order vacating the Final Judgment of Divorce is }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt \f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 an order made after a judgment appealable by subdivision (a).}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 Title 7 GCA }{ \fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 25102(b) (West}{\scaps\fs20\insrsid11173507 , Westlaw }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 through Guam Pub. L. 28-027 (Apr. 22, 2005)).} }}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 III.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [7]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab We review a trial court}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion.}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Midsea Indus., Inc. v. HK Eng}{\i\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 g, Ltd.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 1998 Guam 14, }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 4.}{\cs15\super\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11173507 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 A trial court}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 s ruling on a Rule 60(b)(4) motion to set aside a void judgment is a question of law and thus, subject to }{\i\fs20\insrsid11173507 de novo}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 review on appeal. }{\i\fs20\insrsid11173507 Fed. Deposit Ins. Co. v.Aaronian}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 , 93 F.3d 636, 639 (9th Cir. 1996) (}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{ \fs20\insrsid11173507 We review de novo, however, the district court's decision whether to vacate a judgment as void for lack of personal jurisdiction because this is purely a question of law.}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 ); }{\i\fs20\insrsid11173507 Retail Clerks Union Joint Pension Trust v. Freedom Food Ctr.}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 , 938 F.2d 136, 137 (9th Cir. 1991)(}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 [W]we review }{\i\fs20\insrsid11173507 de novo}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 denial of a 60(b)(4) motion to set aside a judgment as void, because the question of the validity of a judgment is a legal one.}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{ \fs20\insrsid11173507 ). The trial court here did not base its ruling on Rule 60(b)(4); therefore, the }{\i\fs20\insrsid11173507 de novo}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 standard of review does not apply.}}}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Discretion is abused when the trial court}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s decision }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 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.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{ \i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Town House Dep}{\i\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 t Stores, Inc. v. Hi Sup Ahn}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 2003 Guam 6, }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 27 (quoting }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Brown v. Eastman Kodak Co.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 2000 Guam 30, }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 11).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Rev ersal for an abuse of discretion is proper if this court }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 has a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant facts.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Guam Radio Servs., Inc. v. Guam Econ. Dev. Auth.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 2000 Guam 23, }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 6. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 IV.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [8]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab Kennard appeals from the trial court}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s decision granting Maria-Thelma}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the Interlocutory and Final Judgments of Divorce.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Rule 60(b) allows a party relief from final judgment for several reasons, including fraud under subsection (3), void judgment under subsection (4), and }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 any other reason justifying relief from operation of the judgment}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 "}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 under subsection (6).}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Guam R. Civ. P. 60(b).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The trial court based its ruling only on Rule 60(b)(6). \par }{\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [9]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab The ultimate issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in relying on Rule 60(b)(6) to vacate the Interlocutory and Final Judgments, which terminated the marital relationship and awarded the community property of the marriage.}{\cs15\super\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11173507 \chftn }{\insrsid11173507 }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 During oral argument, the attorney for Maria-Thelma indicated that the purpose of Interlocutory Judgment was for division of property, while the purpose of the Final Judgment was to restore the parties}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 status to unmarried persons. He cited no authority for this proposition, and we find none. Rather, Title 19 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 8202 states only that }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 [t]he effect of a judgment decreeing a dissolution of marriage is to restore the parties to the state of unmarried persons.}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 Title 19 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 8202 (West, }{\scaps\fs20\insrsid11173507 Westlaw}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 through Guam Pub. L. 28-027 (Apr. 22, 2005)). This same language is found in Title 19 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 8322, which states that }{ \fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\b\f37\fs20\insrsid11173507 final judgment shall restore the parties to status as single persons.}{\b\f37\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\b\f37\fs20\insrsid11173507 It is not disputed that a final judgment restores the parties}{\b\f37\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\b\f37\fs20\insrsid11173507 status as single persons. }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 Title 19 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 8322 (West, }{\scaps\fs20\insrsid11173507 Westlaw}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 through Guam Pub. L. 28-027 (Apr. 22, 2005)). However, it is not entirely clear that the division of property division is limited to interlocutory judgments alone. Interlocutory judgments are governed by Title 19 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 8321, which states in its entirety: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11173507 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\b\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\b\fs20\insrsid11173507 8321. Decision, Interlocutory Judgment.}{ \fs20\insrsid11173507 In actions for dissolution of marriage, the Court must file its decision and conclusions of law as in other cases, and if it determines that no dissolution of marriage shall be granted, final judgement must thereupon be entered accordingly. If it determi n es that the dissolution of marriage ought to be granted, interlocutory judgment must be entered, declaring that the party in whose favor the court decides is entitled to a dissolution of marriage. After the entry of the interlocutory judgment, neither par ty shall have the right to dismiss the action without the consent of the other. An interlocutory decree of divorce granted pursuant to the provisions of this }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt \f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 8321 must include the social security numbers of both parties, and of all children. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11173507 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11173507 19 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 8321 (West, }{ \scaps\fs20\insrsid11173507 Westlaw}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 through Guam Pub. L. 28-027 (Apr. 22, 2005)). Nothing in this provision limits the purpose of an interlocutory judgment to determining the division of the property. Nothing in the above provisions reveal that property division may not be included in fin al judgments of divorce.}}}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Kennard argues that the trial court abused its discretion because it vacated the judgments without considering the three-factor }{ \i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Midsea}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 test for analyzing Rule 60(b) motions.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 See}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 }{ \i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Midsea}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 1998 Guam 14 at }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 5. }{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Maria-Thelma maintains the court correctly vacated the judgments, arguing that Kennard}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s service by mail was unfair and violated her due process rights because he used an address where she would not receive the mail. \par }{\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 A.}{\b\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Service of Process}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [10]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab It is well settled that when a default judgment is entered without proper service, such default is void.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 This is because the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction if service is defective, and thus, any judgment rendered is void.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 See}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 M & K Welding, Inc. v. Leasing Partners L.L.C.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 386 F.3d 361, 364 (1st Cir. 2004) (explaining as the}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 governing principles . . . that a default judgment issue d without jurisdiction over a defendant is void, that it remains vulnerable to being vacated at any time, and that such jurisdiction depends on the proper service of process or the waiver of any defect}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 "}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 ); }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 U.S. v. One Toshiba Color Television}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 213 F.3d 147, 156 (3rd Cir. 2000) (}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 As a general matter, we have held that the entry of a default judgment without proper service of a complaint renders that judgment void.}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 "}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 ); }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Dodco, Inc. v. Am. Bonding Co.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 7 F.3d 1387, 1388 (8th Cir. 1993) (}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 If a defendant is improperly served, the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 "}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 ); }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Mason v. Genisco Tech. Corp.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 960 F.2d 849, 851 (9th Cir. 1992) (}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 A person is not bound by a judgment in a litigation to which he or she has not been made a party by service of process.); }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Recreational Props., Inc. v. Southwest Mortgage Serv. Corp.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 804 F.2d 311, 314 (5th Cir. 1986) (}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 If a court lacks jurisdiction over the parties because of insufficient service of process, the judgment is void and the district court must set it aside.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 "}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 ).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [11]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab In }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Feore v. Feore}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , the plaintiff in a divorce case effected service by publication and by mailing to a Guam address she shared with the defendant, and obtained a default judgment against the defendant.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{ \i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Feore}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , Civ. No.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 93-00043A, 1993 WL 128361 (D.Guam. App. Div. Apr. 8, 1993). Prior to the filing of the complaint, the defendant had left Guam for Alabama with the couple}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s children.}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Id.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 at *1.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The defendant later sought to set aside the judgment on the ground that the judgment was procured through fraud.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Id.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 He argued that the plaintiff knew his Alabama address because she had called them and had written to the children at the Alabama address.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Id.}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 at *1-2.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The trial found there was no fraud and denied the motion.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Id.}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 at *2.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The Appellate Division reversed, noting that under Rule 4(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 the plaintiff or plaintiff}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s counsel }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 shall be responsible for prompt service of the summons and a copy of the complaint.}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 ' }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Thus, it was the responsibility of [the plaintiff] and her lawyer to ensure that service of process was constitutionally effective and proper under the rules.}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Id.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 at *3 (quoting Guam. R. Civ. P. 4(a)).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The Appellate Division further stated that: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\insrsid11236392 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The Rule imposes no time limit or deadline after which the plaintiff is absolved of that responsibility.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The law prefers that cases be decided on their merits, hence, default judgments are gene rally disfavored. . . . It follows logically, therefore, that Rule 4(a) implicitly requires that the plaintiff use due diligence to ensure that effective service is perfected so as to avoid the entry of default.}{\insrsid11173507 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\i\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Id.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 at *4 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The Appellate Division concluded that service of process on the defendant was not effective and thus, the judgment was void.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Id.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 at *4-5. \par }{\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [12]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab Similarly, we first examine the trial court}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s finding that Kennard had }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 met the requirements}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 under Rule 4(e) and 7 G.C.A. }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 14106 for service upon a party not found within Guam.}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Appellant}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s ER, tab 26 (Decision and Order, June 25, 2004).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Rule 4(e) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure states in relevant part: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\insrsid11236392 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Whenever a statu[t]e or order of court thereunder provides for service of a summons, or of a notice . . . upon a party not an inhabitant of, [or] found within Guam, }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 service shall be made by publication}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 in a newspaper of general circulation for the prescribed time }{ \i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 and by mailing such summons [or] notice . . . to the last known residence (or post office box)}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 of such party. . . . Publications shall be proved by affidavit of an officer or agent of the publisher, stating the dates of publication with an attached copy of the order as published. Service by mail shall be accomplished by any form of U.S. postal del ivery that provides for written proof of mailing, written proof of delivery and restricted delivery to the addressee only.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Mailing shall be proved by affidavit establishing that the address employed is the most current mailing address known for the party b eing served, that a copy of the summons (notice or order) and the complaint were deposited with the U.S. Post Office, properly addressed, and having attached thereto the Postal receipts reflecting a form of mailing prescribed above.}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\insrsid11236392 \par }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Guam R. Civ. P. 4(e) (emphases added).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 In addition, 7 GCA }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 14106 states in relevant part:}{\insrsid11173507 \par }{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 \par }\pard \qj \fi360\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 (a) }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Where the person on whom service is to be made has departed from Guam, and cannot, after due diligence, be found in Guam}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , or conceals himse lf to avoid the service of summons . . . and the fact appears by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court, or a judge thereof, and it also appears by such affidavit, or by the verified complaint on file, that a cause of action exists against the defenda nt in respect to whom the service is to be made . . . }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 such court or judge may make an order that the service be made by the publication of the summons and by mailing the complaint and summons}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 . \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par }\pard \qj \fi360\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 (b) Service by mail shall be by any kind of U. S. Postal Service delivery that provides for written proof of mailing, written proof of delivery and restricted delivery to the addressee only. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\insrsid11236392 \par }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 14106 (emphases added).}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Thus, both Rule 4(e) and 7 GCA }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 14106 require both publication and mailing. \par }{\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [13]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab It is undisputed that the trial court}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s order provided only that service be made by publication, and did not address the mailing requirement as required by statute.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Notwithstanding the omission in the court}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 ' }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s order, proper service under Rule 4(e) and 7 GCA }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 14106 requires that Kennard also mail the summons to Maria-Thelma.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 In short, the order}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s omission does not excuse Kennard from complying with service by mail as required by Guam law.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 See Feore}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 1993 WL 128361 at *3-4. \par }{\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [14]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab Kennard asserts that he complied with the trial court}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s order.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 } {\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 We agree, insofar as he complied with all aspects of service by publication.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The summons was printed }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 for the prescribed time}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 "}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 in the }{ \i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Pacific Daily News}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , which the parties did not dispute (either at trial or in this proceeding) is a }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 newspaper of general circulation.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 GRCP 4(e).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Further, Kennard filed an affidavit from the }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Pacific Daily News}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , which indicated the days of publication, and attached a copy of the summons as it was published.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Kennard}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s compliance with service by publication is not disputed; however, we are mindful that: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\insrsid11236392 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Chance alone brings to the attention of even a local resident an advertisement in small type inserted in the back pages of a newspaper, and if he makes his home outside the area of the newspaper}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s normal circulation the odds that the information will never reach him are large indeed.}{\insrsid11173507 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Feore}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 1993 WL 128361, at * 4 (quoting}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 339 U.S. 306, 315, 70 S. Ct. 652, 658 (1950)). \par }{\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [15]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab The record does not support Kennard}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s contention that he complied with the mailing requirement.}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Rule 4(e) requires that }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [s]ervice by mail shall be accomplished by any form of U.S. postal delivery that provides for written proof of mailing, written proof of delivery and restricted delivery to the addressee only.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 GRCP 4(e).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 In virtually identical language, 7 GCA }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 14106(b) requires that }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [s]ervice by mail shall be by any kind of U.S. Postal Service delivery that provides for written proof of mailing, written proof of delivery and restricted delivery to the addressee only.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Certified Mail through the U.S. Postal Service provides written proof of mailing, and Return Receipt service provides written proof of delivery.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 See}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 http://www.usps.com.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The Postal Service also offers Restricted Delivery service that restricts delivery only to the addressee.}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Id.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [16]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab Kennard offers, as proof of compliance with the mailing requirement, a photocopy of an envelope addressed to Maria-Thelma at 4745 Bongainville Dr., Honolulu, HI 96818.}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Appellant}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s ER, tab 24 (Kennard Pineda Decl., Ex. 1).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The statutory proof of mailing is satisfied by the }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Certified Mail }{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 "}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 label on the envelope.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 However, Guam law also requires proof of delivery (suc h as by Return Receipt service) and restricted delivery.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 In a Declaration, Kennard states that his attorney served Maria-Thelma }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 by return receipt mail at the address of 4745 Bongainville Dr., Honolulu, HI 96818.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Appellant}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s ER, tab 24 (Kennard Pineda Decl., }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 5).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 He further stated that the letter was sent out July 15, 2003 but wa s returned when Maria-Thelma failed to pick it up. \par }{\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [17]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab Kennard}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s contentions reveal, at most, only marginal compliance with the mailing requirement.}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Clearly, the letter was sent by Certified Mail, but there is no way to verify Kennard}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s declaration that Return Receipt was used.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The letter was simply returned with a stamp stating:}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Returned to Sender, Attempted, Not Known.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Appellant}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s ER, tab }{\insrsid11236392 24 (Kennard Pineda Decl., Ex. 1}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 ).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Furthermore, the envelope and Kennard}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s Declaration do not indicate use of Restricted Delivery service, as required by Guam law.}{\cs15\super\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11173507 \chftn }{\insrsid11173507 }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 Restricted Delivery through the U.S. Postal Service is separate from, and is not included as a part of, Certified Mail or Return Receipt service. }{\i\fs20\insrsid11173507 See}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 http://www.usps.com. Guam law requires that service by mailing comply with all three requirements. }{\i\fs20\insrsid11173507 See}{\fs20\insrsid11173507 GRCP 4(e), 7 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{ \fs20\insrsid11173507 14106.}}}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 It is virtually impossible to verify the mailing date of July 15, 2003 because any date on the envelope is very difficult to read.}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Even more troubling is the inadequacy of the affidavit submitted by Kennard to support the mailing requirement.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The affidavit was filed May 21, 2004, almost a year after the letter was mailed to Maria-Thelma.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Furthermore, Kennard did not attach to the affidavit }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 the Postal receipts reflecting a form of mailing prescribed}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 "}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 by the statute.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 GRCP 4(e). \par \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [18]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab Upon review of the relevant facts, we hold that Kennard failed to comply with the service by mailing requirements under Guam law.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 In so holding, we join the majority of jurisdictions that}{\insrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 have adopted a rule of strict compliance of statutory service requirements.}{ \cs15\super\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11173507 \chftn }{\insrsid11173507 }{ \fs20\insrsid11173507 We do not today reach the issue of whether actual notice may cure a technical defect in service, because in the record before us, there is no evidence that Maria-Thelma had actu al notice and Kennard does not argue that she had actual notice. }{\i\fs20\insrsid11173507 See, e.g., }{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid11173507 Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc.}{\f41\fs20\insrsid11173507 ,78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 892, 903 (Ct. App. 1998) (}{ \f41\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid11173507 [T]the statutory provisions regarding service of process should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by the defendant.}{\f41\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt \f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid11173507 )}{\i\fs20\insrsid11173507 ; cf. }{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid11173507 Williams v. Williams}{\f41\fs20\insrsid11173507 , 150 S.W.3d 436, 444 (Tex. App. 2004) (}{\f41\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid11173507 As long as the record as a whole . . . shows that the citation was served on the defendant in the suit, service of process will not be invalidated.}{\f41\fs20\insrsid11173507 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid11173507 ).}{\insrsid11173507 }}}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 See e.g.}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 In re Marriage of Zacher}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 98 P.3d 309, 312 (Mont.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 2004) (}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Rules for service of process are mandatory and must be strictly followed.); }{ \i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Lunt v. Gaylor}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 834 A.2d 367, 368 (N.H. 2003) (}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 We consistently require strict compliance with statutory requirements for service of process.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 "}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 ); }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Gookin v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 826 P.2d 229, 233 (Wyo. 1992) (}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The general rule requires strict compliance with statutes or rules setting forth the requirements for service of process.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 "}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 ); }{ \i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Aaron v. Aaron}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 571 So. 2d 1150, 1151 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990) (}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Strict compliance regarding service of process is required.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 "}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 ). }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Personal jurisdiction may be obtained }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 only through strict compliance}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 with the rules governing service of process.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{ \i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Zacher}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 98 P.3d at 312 (quoting }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 In re Marriage of Blaskovich}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 815 P.2d 581, 582}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 (Mont. 1991); }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 see also Lunt}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 834 A.2d at 368 (}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Because . . . the out-of-state defendants were never properly served, the court never obtained personal jurisdiction over them.}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 "}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 ).}{\insrsid11173507 \par }{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [19]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab We are left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake in finding that Kennard had satisfied the requirements for service upon Maria-Thelma.}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 A trial court has }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 no discretion to refuse vacating a judgment if it is void.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 When it is found that there has been defective service of process, the judgment is void . . . .}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 In re Cossio}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 163 B.R. 150, 154 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 The Interlocutory and Final Judgments were granted despite Kennard}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s failure to comply with service requirements, the}{\insrsid11236392 refore, the judgments are void.}{\insrsid11173507 \par }{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [20]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab Although the trial court correctly vacated the judgments, we do not agree with the analysis adopted by the trial court in reaching the correct result.}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 First, the trial court did not use Rule 60(b)(4) as the basis to grant the motion.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Our examination reveals that because of Kennard}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s failure to comply with statutory service requirements, the trial court}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s judgment is void.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 In re Cossio}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 163 B.R. at 154.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Second, the trial court should not have relied on Rule 60(b)(6) as the basis for granting the motion.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 We have stated that }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 if the circumstances alleged fall into any of the other [Rule 60(b)] subsections allowing set aside, then relief under subsection (6) cannot be had.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Brown v. Eastman Kodak Co.}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 2000 Guam 30, }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 14.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Here, the judgments should have been set aside for void judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), thus, relief should not have be}{\insrsid11236392 en granted under Rule 60(b)(6).}{\insrsid11173507 \par }{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [21]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab The trial court abused its discretion in setting aside the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), rather than Rule 60(b)(4).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 There is an abuse of discretion if the trial court did not apply the correct law, [or] e rroneously interpreted the law . . . .}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 In the Interest of N.A.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 2001 Guam 7, }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 13; }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 see also}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 People v. Tuncap}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 1998 Guam 13 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 13 (}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [A] court abuses its discretion by not applying the correct law . . . . [and] when the law is erroneously interpreted.}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 "}{\insrsid11236392 ) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid11173507 \par }{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 B.}{\b\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\b\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Midsea}{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 factors}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [22]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab Kennard argues that the trial court abused its discretion because it vacated the judgments without considering the three-factor }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Midsea }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 test for analyzing Rule 60(b) motions.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 See Midsea}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 1998 Guam 14 at }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 5.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 We stated in }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Midsea}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 that:}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 A court will deny a motion to set aside a default judgment if it is shown that (1) the defendant}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s culpable conduct led to the default; ( 2) the defendant has no meritorious defense, or (3) the plaintiff would be prejudiced if the judgment is set aside.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 " }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Id.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [23]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab Kennard}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s reliance on }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Midsea}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 is misplaced; the test should be applied when a court is evaluating whether to }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 deny}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 setting aside the judgment.}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Id.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 ; }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 see also In re the Matter of the Petition of Quitugua}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 , 2004 Guam 19, }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 30 (recognizing that the }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Midsea}{ \insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 factors apply }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 in denying a Rule 60(b) motion}{ \insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 "}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 ).}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Here, the trial court }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 granted}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 the motion to set aside.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Thus, there was no need for the trial court to consider the }{\i\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Midsea}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 factors. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 V.}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1080\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11236392 {\b\insrsid11236392 \par }{\b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 [24]}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 \tab We hold first, that Guam}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 '}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 s service requirements are to be strictly construed; thus, the trial court abused its discretion in finding that Kennard had complied with statutory service requirements.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Furthermore, the trial court abused its discretion in relying on Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to set aside the judgments, rather than relying on Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), because the judgments were void for improper service of process.}{\insrsid11236392\charrsid11236392 }{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 Notwithstanding these errors, the trial court properly vacated the Interlocutory and Final Judgments, and thus, the trial court is }{ \b\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 AFFIRMED}{\insrsid11173507\charrsid11236392 . \par }}