{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f38\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana;}{\f39\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f40\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f42\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f43\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f44\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f45\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f46\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f47\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f419\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Verdana CE;}{\f420\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Verdana Cyr;}{\f422\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Verdana Greek;}{\f423\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Verdana Tur;}{\f426\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Verdana Baltic;} {\f427\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Verdana (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;\red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{ \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\s1\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs32\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;}{\s2\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\outlinelevel1\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 2;}{\s3\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sl480\slmult1 \nowidctlpar\faauto\outlinelevel2\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 3;}{\s4\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\faauto\outlinelevel3\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 4;}{\*\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 Default Para;}{\s16\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx0\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 header;}{\*\cs17 \additive \f38\fs19 normaltextfo;}{\s18\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext18 Body Text In;}{\s19\qj \li0\ri0\sl-507\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext19 Body Text 2;}{\*\cs20 \additive \f38\fs19 documentbody;}{\*\cs21 \additive \sbasedon10 page number;}{\*\cs22 \additive \ul\cf2 \sbasedon10 Hyperlink;}{\*\cs23 \additive \super Footnote Ref;}{\s24\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext24 Footnote Tex;}{\s25\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx0\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext25 footer;}} {\*\rsidtbl \rsid3286\rsid939408\rsid7937946\rsid12655195\rsid15615822\rsid16121902}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author Supreme Court of Guam}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2006\mo4\dy3\hr8\min5} {\revtim\yr2006\mo4\dy3\hr8\min9}{\version3}{\edmins1}{\nofpages7}{\nofwords2742}{\nofchars15632}{\*\company }{\nofcharsws18338}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margt2030\margb1080 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\hyphhotz936\notabind\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\subfontbysize\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot7937946 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7937946 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7937946 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7937946 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7937946 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \psz1\sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\titlepg\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid15615822\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \ql \fi-2160\li2160\ri0\widctlpar\tx2880\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\insrsid7937946 De Vera v. Chen}{\insrsid7937946 , Opinion\tab \tab Page \chpgn of }{\field{\*\fldinst {\insrsid7937946 NUMPAGES \\* ARABIC }}{\fldrslt {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid15615822 10}}}{\insrsid7937946 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid7937946 \par }{\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid16121902 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft0\shptop0\shpright0\shpbottom0\shpfhdr0\shpbxmargin\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt0\shpz0\shplid2049 {\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 20}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn lineColor}{\sv 2}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 6096}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxmargin\dobypara\dodhgt8192\dpline\dpptx0\dppty0\dpptx0\dppty0\dpx0\dpy0\dpxsize0\dpysize0\dplinew9\dplinecor2\dplinecog0\dplinecob0}}} {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft0\shptop4\shpright9360\shpbottom4\shpfhdr0\shpbxmargin\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt0\shpz1\shplid2050{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 20}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn lineColor}{\sv 2}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 6096}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxmargin\dobypara\dodhgt8193\dpline\dpptx0\dppty0\dpptx9360\dppty0 \dpx0\dpy4\dpxsize9360\dpysize0\dplinew9\dplinecor2\dplinecog0\dplinecob0}}}}{\fs24\insrsid7937946 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pndec\pnstart1 {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnlcltr\pnstart1 {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pnlcrm\pnstart1 {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pndec\pnstart1 {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pnlcltr\pnstart1 {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6 \pnlcrm\pnstart1 {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pndec\pnstart1 {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1 {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1 }\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 LUIS DE VERA,}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \par Plaintiff}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Appellant, \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 v.}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 WEN YEN CHEN and MAGGIE MEI CHIA CHEN,}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \par Defendants}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Appellees.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Supreme Court Case No.: CVA05}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 002 \par Superior Court Case No.: CVA0255}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 92}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 OPINION}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Filed:}{\b\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 February 28, 2006}{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Cite as:}{\b\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 2006 Guam 1}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par Argued and submitted on May 11, 2005 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam \par \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trgaph120\trleft0\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4920\clshdrawnil \cellx4920\clvertalt \clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4440\clshdrawnil \cellx9360\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\ul\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Appearing for Plaintiff}{\fs24\ul\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\fs24\ul\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Appellant:}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \par Seth Forman, }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Esq.}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \par Berman O'Connor Mann & Shklov \par Ste. 503 Bank of}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Guam Bldg. \par 111 Chalan Santo Papa \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910\cell }{\fs24\ul\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Appearing for Defendants}{\fs24\ul\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\fs24\ul\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Appellees: \par }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 David J. Lujan, }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Esq.}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \par Peter J. Sablan,}{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Esq.}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \par Lujan, Unpingco, Aguigui & Perez LLP \par Ste. 300 Pacific News Bldg. \par 238 Archbishop Flores St. \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910 \par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trgaph120\trleft0\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4920\clshdrawnil \cellx4920\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4440\clshdrawnil \cellx9360\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Robert L. Keogh, }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Esq.}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \par Law Office of Robert L. Keogh \par Ste. 105 C & A Prof. Bldg. \par 251 Martyr St. \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910\cell \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow \ts11\trgaph120\trleft0\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4920\clshdrawnil \cellx4920\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl \brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4440\clshdrawnil \cellx9360\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \par BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 GATEWOOD, Associate Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, JR., Associate Justice.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 CARBULLIDO, C.J.:}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [1]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab Plaintiff}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Appellant Luis De Vera appeals from a Superior Court Judgment dismissing the case pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 De Vera argues that the twenty}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 two month time period of inactivity does not warrant dismissal, there was no prejudice demonstrated as a result of the delay, and points out that public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 In response, Respondent}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Appellees Wen Yen Chen and Maggie Mei Chia Chen, (}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Chens}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 ) contend that the trial court\rquote s holding was proper.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The Chens submit that there was no reasonable excuse to justify the delay, that there is a presumption of prejudice to them by the delay, and that the court need not consider sanctions less drastic than dismissal.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [2]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab The Superior Court certified the Judgment appealed from in this case as final pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 We hold, however, that the trial court erred in certifying the Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b).}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 We further hold that we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, and accordingly, dismiss the appeal. }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 I.}{\b\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [3]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 In May 1990, the parties executed a Land Purchase Agreement, whereby De Vera purported to sell Lot No. 5156}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 1, Dededo, Guam, to the Chens.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The agreement required the Chens to pay $250,000.00 to De Vera up front, along with a promissory note for $43,000.00.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The Chens properly executed this part of the agreement.} {\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 However, when the promissory note was due to be paid a year later, the Chens refused to pay the $43,000.00.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [4]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab De Vera initiated court proceedings by filing a Complaint for Rescission on March 3, 1992.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 He also recorded a Notice of Lis Pendens on the same day.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 On April 4, 1994, he amended his complaint.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 He requested the remaining balance of $43,000.00 together with pre}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 and post}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 judgment interest, and reasonable costs of collection, including attorney\rquote s fees and exemplary damages. }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [5]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab The Chens filed an amended answer and counterclaim in July 1992 for fraud, claiming that they relied upon De Vera\rquote s intentional misrepresentations that the agreement was to convey clear and clean title to }{\fs24\ul\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 +}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 1,465 square meters of property.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 They assert that only 1,244 square meters of the actual land were conveyed.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The Chens submit that De Vera was actually the broker and not the true owner of the land in question.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The Chens also argue that the agreement was subject to the condition that the property should be cleared of tenants or occupants before the full payment of the contract price, and that this condition has still not been fulfilled.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The Chens request that the court reduce the contract price to $200,000.00 or less, requiring De Vera to return $50,000.00 of the $250,000.00 the Chens have already paid.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The Chens also ask for punitive damages and an award of costs and attorneys\rquote fees.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [6]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab After various trial continuances, four judicial disqualifications, and three previous motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b), the Chens filed their fourth motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b).}{ \fs24\super\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 1{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\insrsid7937946 \tab }{\fs24\super\insrsid7937946 1}{ \fs24\insrsid7937946 }{\insrsid7937946 Although the reasons for the numerous continuances and the disqualifications of four different trial judges are not before us for review, we take th is opportunity to emphasize that careful management of dockets is important to the administration of justice. Moreover, although judges must be continually cognizant of the reasons for disqualification, particularly when his or her impartiality might rea sonably be questioned, judges have an equally strong duty not to recuse when the circumstances do not require recusal. }{\i\insrsid7937946 See Laird v. Tatum, }{\insrsid7937946 480 U.S. 824 (1972) (stating that \'93 a judge has a duty to sit where not disqualified which is equally as strong as the duty to not sit where disqualified\'94).}}}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The trial court granted the motion on April 6, 2004, thereby dismissing De Vera\rquote s claims, but did not address the Chens\rquote counterclaims. The court directed the Chens to submit a Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice and the Chens complied.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The Judgment of Dismissal of plaintiff\rquote s claims was filed on April 28, 2004.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 In July 2004, De Vera voluntarily withdrew the Notice of Lis Pendens. }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [7]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab In response to the trial court\rquote s dismissal, De Vera filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim for failure to prosecute.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Because each party would be submitting contradictory arguments, De Vera pursued Rule 54(b) certification of the partial judgment which dismissed his complaint.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The trial judge granted certification on December 22, 2004.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The court stated:}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The Court has determined that there is no just reason for delay in the entry of a final judgment as to plaintiff\rquote s complaint.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The Court finds that the respective claims in the complaint and the counterclaim are sufficiently related th at there is a possibility of prejudice to both parties as to evidentiary issues and other issues if the claim and counterclaim were to be tried separately.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 These considerations and considerations of judicial economy dictate that certification be granted, so that plaintiff\rquote s claim will either be finally and completely be disposed of prior to trial should the dismissal of the complaint be affirmed, or plaintiff\rquote s claim and counterclaim will be tried together if the dismissal of the complaint is reversed.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Appellant\rquote s ER, at 92}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 93 (Order Granting Certification Pursuant to GRCP 54(b), Dec. 22, 2004).}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The Chens have not appealed the 54(b) certification.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [8]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab On January 13, 2005, De Vera filed an appeal of the Rule 41(b) dismissal.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 On June 21, 2005, we ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs on the issue of whether or not Rule 54(b) certification was proper. }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 II.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [9]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Title 7 GCA \'a7 3108(b) (2005), which provides that orders may be subject to immediate appellate review by the Supreme Court }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 where it determines that resolution of the questions of law on which the order is based will . . . [m]aterially advance the termination of the litigation or clarify further proceedings therein.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 " \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 III.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [10]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab A trial court\rquote s order granting Rule 54(b) certification is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{ \i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 See Guam Hous. & Urban Renewal Auth. (}{\i\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 GHURA}{\i\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 ) v. Pac. Superior Enters.}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 , 2004 Guam 22 \'b6 19.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Abuse of discretion is defined as a trial court decision }{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 exercised to an end not justified by the evidence, a judgment that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts as are found.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 " }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 People v. Tuncap}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 , 1998 Guam 13 \'b6 12 (quoting }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Int\rquote l Jensen, Inc. v. Metrosound USA., Inc}{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 ., 4 F.3d 819, 822 (9th Cir. 1993)).}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The \lquote issuance of a 54(b) order is a fairly routine act that is reversed only in the rarest instances.\rquote }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 GHURA}{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 , 2004 Guam 22 \'b6 19 (quoting }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 James v. Price Stern Sloan., Inc}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 ., 283 F.3d 1064, 1068 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002)).}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The proper role of the appellate court is }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 not to reweigh the equities or reassess the facts but to make sure that the conclusions derived from those weighings and assessments are juridically sound and supported by the record.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 " }{ \i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Curtiss}{\i\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 ., 446 U.S. 1, 10 (1980).}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 IV.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [11]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab In relevant part, Rule 54(b) states: }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 claim, or third}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 party claim, or when multiple pa rties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay, and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 " }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Guam R. Civ. P. 54(b).}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [12]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab Two inquiries must be made when determining whether Rule 54(b) certification is proper.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 First, the court must determine whether it is dealing with a }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 final judgment.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 " }{ \i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Curtiss}{\i\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Wright}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 , 446 U.S. at 7 (quoting }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Sears, Roebuck & Co., v. Mackey}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 , 351 U.S. 427 (1956)).}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Different tests have been developed to determine whether a judgment is final.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Second, the court must perform a balancing test and consider whether the }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 costs and risks of multiple proceedings and the policy with respect to judicial efficiency are outweighed by the need for an \lquote early and separate judgment as to some claims or parties.\rquote }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 " }{ \i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 See GHURA}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 , 2004 Guam 22 \'b6 20.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 In doing so, the court should determine that there is no just reason for delay and give an express direction for the entry of judgment.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 See id}{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 .}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 These inquiries are examined in detail below.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 A.}{\b\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 First Prong:}{\b\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Finality}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [13]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab To satisfy the first prong of finality, the judgment }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 must be a \lquote judgment \rquote in the sense that it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief, and it must be \lquote final\rquote in the sense that it is \lquote an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.\rquote } {\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 " }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Curtiss}{\i\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Wright}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 , 446 U.S. at 7.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The United States Supreme Court in }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Curtiss}{\i\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Wright}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 explained that }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [t]he court of appeals must, of course, scrutinize the district court's evaluation of such factors as the interrelationship of claims so as to prevent piecemeal appeals in cases which should be reviewed only as single units.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 " }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 446 U.S. at 10.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [14]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab In other words, the claim adjudicated must be separate from the remaining claims in the case, capable of being disposed of without affecting the claims still pending.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 We stated in }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 GHURA}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 , that }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 the claim adjudicated must be a \lquote claim for relief\rquote separable from and independent of the remaining claims in the case.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 " }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 2004 Guam 22 \'b6 20.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 If there is a close relationship between the adjudicated claim and the pending claim, the claims should be dealt with together, rather than piecemeal.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 See Curtiss}{ \i\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Wright}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 , 446 U.S. at 10.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [15]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab Determining finality, then, requires determining whether De Vera\rquote s contract claim is separate and independent from the Chens\rquote remaining fraud counterclaim, and thus capable of a final disposition.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [16]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab Courts have struggled to clarify a single test to determine whether the claims are separate and independent. The Seventh Circuit Court has said:}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Neither the Supreme Court nor this Court . . . has enunciated a general definition of what separate }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 " }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 claims for relief}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 are in the context of Rule 54(b).}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The competing policies underlying Rule 54(b) give no clear guidance.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 On one hand, the liberal provisions of the Federal Rules regarding joinder of claims require some mechanism to accelerate executi on of the judgment and repose as to rights decided early in a given litigation; but on the other hand, since claims in a given litigation do not always fall neatly into discrete blocks in terms of the underlying facts potentially relevant to each, pieceme al review may wastefully force appellate courts to familiarize themselves with the facts of the litigation more than once . . . courts have been completely unable to settle on a single test for determining when claims are }{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 separate.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 " \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Local P}{\i\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 171, Amalgamated Meat Cutter & Butcher Workmen v. Thompson Farms Co}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 ., 642 F.2d 1065, 1070 (7th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted). }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 1.}{\b\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Separate facts}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [17]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab In the past, courts have considered whether or not the claims arose out of different factual occurrence s so as to make them distinct, and whether the claims were based on different legal theories.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 See}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 10 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & May Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure \'a7 2657 (3d ed. 1998).}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 However, such approach was }{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 unsatisfactory and provided little predictability}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 and moreover, }{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [i]n many situations, piecemeal appeals were allowed.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 " }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Id}{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 . }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 2.}{\b\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Separate recovery}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [18]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab An alternative and a more appropriate test considers whether each claim could have been enforced separately.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{ \i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 See Local P}{\i\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 171}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 , 642 F.2d at 1070}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 1071 (}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Rather than attempting to advance a general definition of what constitutes \lquote separate claims\rquote , we conclude that a better approach is to state rules of thumb to identify certain types of claims that clearly cannot be \lquote separate,\rquote . . . At a minimum, claims cannot be separate unless separate recovery is possible on each.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 ); }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Rieser v. Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co.}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 , 224 F.2d 198, 199 (2nd Cir. 1955) (}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The ultimate determination of multiplicity of claims must rest in every case on whether th e underlying factual bases for recovery state a number of different claims which could have been separately enforced.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 ).}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 It has been recognized that the determination of the separateness of the claims }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 rest in every case on whether the underlying factual b ases for recovery could have been separately enforced.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 10 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & May Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure \'a7 2657 (3d ed. 1998).}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Furthermore, reading }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Sears, Roebuck & Co., v. Mackey}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 , 351 U.S. 427 (1956) and }{ \i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 ., 351 U.S. 445 (1956) together, }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 these decisions repudiate the notion that a separate claim for purposes of Rule 54(b) is one that must be entirely distinct from all the other claims in the action and arise from a different occurrence or transaction.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 " }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 10 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & May Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure \'a7 2657 (3d ed. 1998).}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 3.}{\b\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Application of the tests}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [19]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab Applying both tests to the instant case reveals that De Vera\rquote s claim and the Chens\rquote counterclaim are not separate and independent from each other.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [20]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 First, under the separate facts test, De Vera\rquote s claim (enforcement of the contract price) and the Chens\rquote counterclaim (relief from a fr audulent contract) arise out of the same factual grounds.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 At issue in both the claim and counterclaim is the contractual transaction involving the sale and acquisition of Lot No. 5156}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 1. }{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [21]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab Second, under the separate recovery test, the parties\rquote claims cannot be separately enforced.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Both De Vera\rquote s claim and the Chens\rquote counterclaim are dependent on the validity of the contract and whether or not the conditions precedent were fulfilled.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 If the court should find that the contract was valid and depicted an a ccurate number of square meters and the conditions precedent were satisfied, the Chens would lose on their counterclaim and thus, be ordered to pay De Vera the remaining balance.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 However, should the court find that the contract was invalid and less land wa s actually conveyed than claimed in the contract or the condition precedents were not fulfilled, De Vera would lose on his claim and thus, be ordered to pay the Chens.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Under these facts, De Vera\rquote s claim and the Chens\rquote counterclaim cannot be separately enforced.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The two claims are sufficiently related, and thus, should be adjudicated together, rather than piecemeal.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 See Curtiss}{\i\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{ \i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Wright}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 , 446 U.S. at 10. Indeed, having sufficiently related claims is precisely the situation in which granting Rule 54(b) certification is improper.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [22]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab Significantly, in the Order Granting Certification Pursuant to GRCP 54(b), the trial court itself found that the claim and counterclaim were related.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The Court finds that the respective claims in the complaint and the counterclaim are sufficiently related that there is a possibility of prejudice to both parties as to evidentiary issues and other issues if the claim and counterclaim to be tried separately.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 " }{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Appellant\rquote s ER, at 92}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 93 (Order Granting Certification Pursuant to GRCP 54(b), Dec. 22, 2004).}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The trial court further states that because of the relatedness of the claims and considerations of judicial economy, De Vera\rquote s claim should be certified:}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 if the dismissal is affirmed, his claim will be disposed of, and if the dismissal is reversed, both claim and counterclaim will be tried together.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 De Vera himself puts forth this argument, stating that the trial court's certification was proper because it facilitated resolution of the litigation.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Although the trial court recognized the relatedness of the claim and counterclaim, it inexplicably relied on this as a reason for granting certification.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 We have stated that a close relationship of claims is a reason for denying \endash not granting \endash Rule 54(b) certification.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [23]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab The trial court furt her erred in applying Rule 54(b), because it bypassed the first step of finding that the claims are separate, and instead immediately balanced judicial efficiency with the need for an early and separate judgment for one of the claims.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 However, this balancing test is applied only after the first step has been satisfied.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 See Gregorian v. Isvestia}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 , 871 F.2d 1515, 1519 (9th. Cir. 1989) (}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Curtiss}{\i\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 -}{ \i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Wright}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 requires two enquiries.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 The first, consisting of the scrutiny of the district court \rquote s evaluation of factors such as the interrelationship of the claims . . . [t]he second, an assessment of basically equitable concerns, is made only after the . . . concerns of the first step are satisfied.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 " }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 )(citations omitted).}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Here, the trial court erred; the court apparently overlooked the first prong, and immediately addressed the second prong in balancing the equities.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [24]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab We hold that trial court erred in granting Rule 54(b) certification.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 B.}{\b\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Second Prong:}{\b\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Balancing Test}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [25]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab The second prong in a Rule 54(b) analysis involves considering whether or not costs and risks of multiple proceedings and the policy with respect to judicial efficiency are outweighed by the need for an early and separate judgment as to De Vera\rquote s claim.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\i\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 See }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 10 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & May Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure \'a7 2655 (3d ed. 1998) (}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 An appellate court need concern itself with the other Rule 54(b) prerequisite . . . only when it is satisfied that the [lower] court properly h as reached a final decision as to any of the claims or parties and has directed the entry of judgment on that decision.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 "}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 ).}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [26]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab Having found that De Vera\rquote s contract claim is neither factually separate nor separately enforceable, it not capable of a final disposition because it is not separate and independent from the Chens\rquote fraud counterclaim.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Based on our analysis above, it is unnecessary to analyze the second prong of balancing the equities.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 IV.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12655195 {\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 [27]}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 \tab We hold that the trial court erred in certifying the Superior Court Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure.}{ \fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Furthermore, because the Judgment was erroneously certified, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear De Vera\rquote s appeal.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 }{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 Accordingly, we }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 REVERSE}{\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 the certification order and }{\b\fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 DISMISS}{ \fs24\insrsid7937946\charrsid16121902 this a}{\fs24\insrsid939408\charrsid16121902 ppeal for lack of jurisdiction.}{\fs24\insrsid12655195\charrsid16121902 \par }}