{\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};}
{\f182\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f183\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f185\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f186\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f187\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f188\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f189\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f190\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\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\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 \styrsid1536722 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 \styrsid1536722 documentbody;}{\*\cs16 \additive \ul\cf2 
\sbasedon10 \styrsid1536722 Hyperlink;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid1536722 footer;}{\*\cs18 
\additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid1536722 page number;}{\s19\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext19 \styrsid1536722 header;}{
\s20\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext20 \ssemihidden \styrsid1536722 footnote text;}{\*\cs21 \additive \super 
\sbasedon10 \ssemihidden \styrsid1536722 footnote reference;}}{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid420403\rsid811014\rsid862776\rsid1536722\rsid1598413\rsid1972231\rsid2193419\rsid2309175\rsid2371452\rsid2504626\rsid2506087
\rsid3176464\rsid3422714\rsid3810279\rsid3822112\rsid3831056\rsid4160285\rsid4329331\rsid4331392\rsid4744076\rsid4815830\rsid4855016\rsid4931203\rsid5052173\rsid5062183\rsid5123780\rsid5592493\rsid5643559\rsid6060947\rsid6160848\rsid6514138\rsid6782860
\rsid6953338\rsid7366506\rsid7483118\rsid7958375\rsid8016262\rsid8083724\rsid8270074\rsid8524331\rsid8598875\rsid8790013\rsid8866877\rsid9189166\rsid9400487\rsid9452663\rsid9455426\rsid9776131\rsid10712439\rsid10749241\rsid11014019\rsid11292607
\rsid11355540\rsid11404427\rsid11880640\rsid11928628\rsid12063525\rsid12081942\rsid12211158\rsid12921552\rsid12931985\rsid12983114\rsid13198352\rsid14055906\rsid14105686\rsid14108652\rsid14496123\rsid14510136\rsid14695321\rsid14967201\rsid15032169
\rsid15159555\rsid15297671\rsid15405516\rsid15541791\rsid15560408\rsid15864576\rsid15945946\rsid16592213\rsid16597937\rsid16671932}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info
{\title \'93this is a quote, has said, of me saying \'91this is a quote\'92\'94}{\author ruddley_e}{\operator ruddley_e}{\creatim\yr2011\mo5\dy24\hr13\min12}{\revtim\yr2011\mo5\dy24\hr14\min35}{\version1}{\edmins10}{\nofpages6}{\nofwords2251}
{\nofchars12832}{\*\company scims}{\nofcharsws15053}{\vern24689}}\margl1440\margr1440 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1440\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1
\dgvshow1\jexpand\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct
\asianbrkrule\rsidroot1536722\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit\viewbksp1 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1536722 \chftnsep 

\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1536722 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1536722 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1536722 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \psz1\linex0\headery1440\endnhere\titlepg\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid1536722\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \s19\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqr\tx9360\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid747821 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid1509649 Pangelinan v. Camacho}{\fs20\insrsid1509649 , Opinion\tab  }{\fs20\insrsid1509649\charrsid873156 Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\cs18\fs20\insrsid1509649\charrsid873156  PAGE }
}{\fldrslt {\cs18\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid420403 6}}}{\cs18\fs20\insrsid1509649\charrsid873156  of }{\field{\*\fldinst {\cs18\fs20\insrsid1509649\charrsid873156  NUMPAGES }}{\fldrslt {\cs18\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid1536722 
10}}}{\fs20\insrsid1509649\charrsid873156 
\par }\pard \s19\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\brdrb\brdrs\brdrw10\brsp20 \tqr\tx9360\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid873156 {\fs20\insrsid1509649\charrsid873156 
\par }\pard \s19\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqr\tx9360\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\pnrdate-2030738479\pnrnot1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9904251 {\fs20\insrsid1509649\charrsid873156 
\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\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid420403 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid420403 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 VICENTE C. PANGELINAN and JOSEPH C. WESLEY,
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Plaintiffs-Appellees,
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid420403 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 v.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid420403 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
FELIX P. CAMACHO, Governor; John Weisenberger, Acting Attorney General; Lawrence P. Perez, Director of the Department of Public Works; Anthony C. Blaz, Acting Administrator of the G
uam Economic Development and Commerce Authority; Terezo R. Mortera, Director of Land Management; Y\rquote Asela A. Pereira, Treasurer of Guam; Government of Guam,}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Defendants-Appellees,
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid420403 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 v.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid420403 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 GUAM RESOURCE RECOVERY PARTNERS,}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Intervening Defendant-Appellant.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid420403 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Supreme Court Case No. CVA10-001
\par Superior Court Case No. SP0212-00
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid420403 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 OPINION
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid420403 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Filed:}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 May 18, 2011
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid420403 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Cite as: 2011 Guam 9
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted December 2, 2010
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam
\par 
\par }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Appearing for Intervenor Defendant-Appellant:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Appearing for 
Defendants-Appellees }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par Arthur B. Clark, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Esq.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Philip D. Isaac, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Esq.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par Calvo & Clark, LLP}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Assistant Attorney General
\par 259 Martyr St., Ste. 100}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Office of the Attorney General
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 287 W O\rquote Brien Dr.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910
\par 
\par }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Appearing for Plaintiffs-Appellees: 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Michael F. Phillips, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Esq.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par Phillips & Bordallo, P.C.
\par 410 W O\rquote Brien Dr.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910}{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par BEFORE: KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Presiding Justice}{\cs21\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s20\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs21\super\insrsid1536722 \chftn }{\insrsid1536722  }{\cf1\insrsid1536722 Then Chief Justice Robert J. Torres and Associate Justice F. Philip Carbullido were recused from this matter. \~
Justice Maraman, as the senior member of the panel, was designated Presiding Justice.}{\*\bkmkstart hit5}{\*\bkmkstart hit_last}{\*\bkmkend hit5}{\*\bkmkend hit_last}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 ; ALEXANDRO C. CASTRO, 
Justice }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pro Tempore}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 ; and JOHN A. MANGLONA, Justice }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pro 
Tempore.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 MANGLONA, Justice }{\b\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pro Tempore}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 :
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 [1]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
This case stems from a series of agreements between the Government of Guam and numerous parties regarding the building of a facility on Guam that would convert solid waste into electrical power and is being appealed for the fourth time.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan v. Camacho}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 , 2008 Guam 4 (\'93}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 \'94) the
 court held that the entire 1996 Agreement was unenforceable, reversed the trial court\rquote s grant of summary judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with the Opinion.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 2008 Guam 4 \'b6 20.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Intervening
 Defendant-Appellant Guam Resource Recovery Partners (\'93GRRP\'94) appeals from the trial court judgment declaring the 1996 Agreement void in its entirety and enjoining performance of the agreement.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 On appeal, GRRP contends the inclusion of the language \'93for further proceedings\'94 in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 required the trial court to conduct a new trial or, at the very least, an evidentiary hearing because the mandate was general, not specific.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 For the reasons discussed below, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the trial court\rquote s judgment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid420403 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 I.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 [2]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
The factual and procedural background in this case have been fully discussed in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan v. Gutierrez}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 , 2003 Guam 13 \'b6
\'b6 2-10 (\'93}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 \'94), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
Pangelinan v. Gutierrez}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 , 2004 Guam 16 \'b6 1 (\'93}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan II}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 \'94), and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan v. Camacho}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 , 2008 Guam 4 \'b6 2 (\'93}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 \'94) and so we will not recite it fully here.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
This case stems from a series of agreements between the Government of Guam and numerous parties regarding the building of a facility on Guam that would convert solid waste into electrical power.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 On the first appeal in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan I,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
 this court held that the entire agreement was null and void because it violated 48 U.S.C.A. \'a7 1423j and 5 GCA \'a7 22401.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan I}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 , 2003 Guam 13 \'b6 27.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Then in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan II}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 , we affirmed our holding in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan I }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 that section 4.04 of the 1996 Agreement violated}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 48 U.S.C.A. \'a7
 1423j and 5 GCA \'a7 22401 but amended our earlier decision and remanded the case for a determination on whether section 4.04 was severable from the 1996 Agreement.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan II}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 , 2004 Guam 15 \'b6 1.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 On remand, the trial court was instructed to apply a two-part analysis for severability that tests, one,
 whether the illegal provision is the central purpose of the agreement and, two, whether the illegal provision is integral to the agreement.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 . at \'b6 18.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 In applying the test, the trial court concluded that section 4.04 was severable from the 1996 Agreement and held that the remaining portions of the 1996 Agreement were valid and enforceable.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Subsequently, the matter was appealed for the third time in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
Pangelinan III}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 the court }{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 determined that }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 \'93
section 4.04 is an essential part of the agreed exchange and, looking at the language of the 1996 Agreement, GRRP would not have entered into the 1996 Agreement without this provision, [because] it is integral and not severable.\'94 }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 , 2008 Guam 4 \'b6 9.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 The court further clarified that this conclusion was reached \'93by looking at the law underpinning the second part of our }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
Pangelinan II}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  severability analysis and then applying this law to section 4.04 and the 1996 Agreement.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
Finally, the court held that the entire 1996 Agreement was unenforceable, reversed the trial court\rquote s grant of summary judgment and \'93[remanded] this matter for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  at \'b6 20. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 [3]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 After this court denied the Petition for Rehearing, the case retu
rned to the trial court for the third time.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 On remand, the trial court in an order determined the 1996 Agreement was void in its entirety
 and enjoined performance of the agreement.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 GRRP Excerpts of Record (\'93ER\'94) at ER099 (Order, Sept. 3, 2009).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 The trial court further held that there were \'93
no factual issues of contractual intent which require a trial because the entire 1996 agreement is unenforceable.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Id}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 \'93Further proceedings are unnecessary.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Judgment was entered thereafter and GRRP timely filed this notice of appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid420403 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 III.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 JURISDICTION}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\brdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \brdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \brdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \brdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 {
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 [4]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 This court has jurisdiction over this appeal from a final judgment.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 48 U.S.C.A. \'a7 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 112-9 (2011)); 7 GCA \'a7\'a7 3107, 3108(a) (2005). }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid420403 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 IV.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 STANDARD OF REVIEW}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 [5]}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 T
he interpretation by an appellate court of its own mandate is properly considered a question of law, reviewable }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 de novo.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 ,}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  115 F.3d 947, 95
0 (9th Cir. 1997).}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Additionally, \'93an appellate court reviews the trial court\rquote 
s actions on remand for an abuse of discretion.\'94 }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Town House Dep\rquote t Stores, Inc. v. Ahn}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 , 2003 Guam 6 \'b6
 17 (\'93}{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Town House}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 \'94).}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid420403 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 V.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 ANALYSIS}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 [6]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 On appeal, GRRP argues that the language in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 \'93for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion\'94 is a general mandate and, therefore, the trial c
ourt was required to conduct a trial or, at the very least, an evidentiary hearing.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 In determining whether the trial court abused 
its discretion, we first address whether the court in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 issued a general or specific mandate. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 A.}{\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 General or Specific Mandate}{
\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 [7]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 GRRP asserts that the court\rquote s inclusion of the language \'93
for further proceedings\'94 required the trial court to conduct a new trial or evidentiary hearing because the instruction constitutes a general, and not a specific mandate.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 We previously held in }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Town House }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 that \'93[b]
ecause the case was remanded, the trial court necessarily was required to conduct further proceedings, even without specific directions given to that effect.\'94}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 2003 Guam 6 \'b6 14 (citing }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Haeuser v. Dep\rquote t of Law}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 ,}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  2002 Guam 8 \'b6 16 which explains that \'93
[E]very remanded case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the appellate court opinion\'94).}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
The question we must now decide is what constitutes \'93further proceedings.\'94}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 [8]}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 The parties in this case cite }{
\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Town House}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  in arguing for a precise definition of \'93further proceedings.\'94}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 In }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Town House}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 , the appellant argued that the trial court failed to hold further proceedings because neither a trial nor an evidentiary hearing was conducted.}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 The holding in }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Town House}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  made clear, however, that \'93further proceedings\'94 need not be a trial, nor is the admission of new evidence always required.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Id.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  at \'b6\'b6 20-21.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Instead, the determinative question is what type of \'93further proceedings\'94 the trial court was required to conduct based upon the instructions of the appellate court.}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Id.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  at \'b6 14. }{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 [9]}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Further, in determining how to proceed on remand, the 
trial court \'93must examine both the mandate and the opinion and proceed in accordance with the views expressed therein.\'94}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Id.
}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  at \'b6 16.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 A determination of the type of \'93
further proceedings\'94 that was required of the trial court therefore requires a review of the Mandate and Opinion issued in }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III.}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 An appellate court\rquote s mandate and instructions upon remand may be either general or specific.}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 See id.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  at \'b6 19.}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Some courts have found that \'93when an appellate court\rquote s mandate reverses for further proceedings without more s
pecific instructions, the mandate is a general mandate which requires the trial court to conduct an entirely new trial on all the issues of fact.\'94}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Id.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  at \'b6 19 (citing }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
First State Bank of Bishop v. Grebe,}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  162 S.W.2d 165, 168-69 (Tex. Civ. App. 1942).}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 [10]}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 While a superficial reading of the language in }{
\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  to conduct \'93further proceedings\'94 may be read as a general mandate, the words \'93
for further proceedings\'94 cannot, however, be interpreted in isolation from the opinion as a whole.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
Moreover, we have previously clarified that a mandate is specific when \'93it is clear that the court remanded the case for a determination of only one issue.\'94}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Town House}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  at \'b6 18-19.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 In }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Town House}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 , the trial court was 
only required \'93to decide a particular issue\'94 and \'93conduct further proceedings which were not inconsistent with the appellate court\rquote s opinion.\'94}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Id.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  at \'b6 19.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Similarly, in this case, after this court\rquote s opinion in }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 , the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 {\*\bkmkstart FN6}{\*\bkmkend FN6}single issue remaining upon rema
nd was whether or not new evidence was needed in order to render a final judgment on the validity of the 1996 Agreement.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
Therefore, because the trial court was required to decide a particular issue on remand and in viewing the opinion as a whole, we conclude that the mandate issued in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  was a specific mandate.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  {\*\bkmkstart SR_4951}{\*\bkmkend SR_4951}
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 B.}{\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Requirement of New Trial or Evidentiary Hearing}{
\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 [11]}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Having concluded that the mandate issued in }{
\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 is a specific mandate, we next discuss whether the trial c
ourt was required to conduct a new trial or evidentiary hearing.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 On remand, the trial court held a status hearing to discuss th
is court\rquote s mandate in }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 .}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 The parties had opposing positions on the meaning of this court\rquote s mandate and thus additional briefing on the issue was requested by the trial judge.}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 After considering the briefs filed by all parties the trial court issued an order declaring the 1996 Agreement void in its entirety
 and enjoining performance of the agreement.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 ER at ER099 (Order).}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 The court further held that the case did not require a new trial or the submission of additional evidence.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Id}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 .}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  
\par }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 [12]}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 A specific mandate only requires the trial c
ourt to conduct further proceedings which are not inconsistent with the appellate court\rquote s opinion.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 A.M. v. State,}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  945 P.2d 296, 300-01 (Alaska 1997) (stating \'93a trial court [cannot] deviate from a specific mandate of the supreme court but may take actions not inconsistent with [the] decision.\'94
).}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Where a case is remanded without direction or restriction as to the method to be utilized for determining such an issue, \'93
it is for the {\*\bkmkstart sp_661_335}{\*\bkmkstart SDU_335}{\*\bkmkstart citeas__Cite_as__255_Mont__357___362__84}{\*\bkmkend sp_661_335}{\*\bkmkend SDU_335}{\*\bkmkend citeas__Cite_as__255_Mont__357___362__84}
trial court to determine in its discretion whether the record before it is sufficient for this purpose or whether additional evidence should be taken to supplement the record.\'94}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 In re Marriage of Becker}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 , {\*\bkmkstart OLE_LINK1}{\*\bkmkstart OLE_LINK2}842 P2d 332{\*\bkmkend OLE_LINK1}
{\*\bkmkend OLE_LINK2}, 362 (Mont. 1992) (citing }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Lovely and Laubach v. Burroughs Corp.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  548 P.2d 610, 612 (Mont. 
1976)).}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Absent specific instructions to the contrary, a trial court has 
the discretion to determine the nature of the required further proceedings.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\highlight7\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  
\par }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\highlight7\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 [13]}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 At the status hearing on remand,
 the parties were ordered to fully brief their positions regarding the requirements of this court\rquote s mandate in }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 .}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 The status he
aring represented the third time the case had come before the trial court.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Nonetheless, despite the trial court\rquote 
s familiarity with the facts of the case and prior to issuing a final judgment, the trial court considered the oral and written arguments of the parties.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 In so doing, the trial court conducted \'93further proceedings\'94 not inconsistent with this court\rquote s specific mandate on remand. }{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 [14]}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
In determining whether the trial court should have considered evidence or conduct a hearing on remand, the appellate court reviews the specific issue that was remanded to determine if the trial court\rquote 
s proceedings allowed for sufficient resolution of the issue.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
Here, the only issue presented to the trial court upon remand was whether or not it was necessary to consider additional evidence prior to issuing a final judgment.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 
The trial court had sufficient evidence from both the previous trial court proceedings as well as the three Supreme Court appeals to render a final judgment without conducting a new trial or hold an evidentiary hearing.}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 An abuse of discretion only occurs when a trial court\rquote s judgment is \'93not justified by the evidence\'94 or \'93
is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts.\'94}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 {\*\bkmkstart OLE_LINK3}{\*\bkmkstart OLE_LINK4}People v. 
{\*\bkmkend OLE_LINK3}{\*\bkmkend OLE_LINK4}Tuncap}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 , 1998 Guam 13 \'b6 12 (internal citation omitted).}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Furthermore, an appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court unless it has, \'93
a definite and firm conviction [that] the trial court, after weighing relevant factors, committed clear error of judgment in its conclusion.\'94}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Id.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  (}{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 quoting United States v. Plainbull}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 ,}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  957 F.2d 724, 725 (9th Cir. 1992)).}{\cs16\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  }{
\cs16\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs16\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\cs16\b\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 [15]}{\cs16\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs16\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 The trial court\rquote 
s holding that the 1996 Agreement is null and void in its entirety and that Section 4.04 is not severable was not \'93clearly against the logic and effect of the facts.\'94}{\cs16\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs16\i\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Id}{\cs16\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 .}{\cs16\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\cs16\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 This court twice declared that the Agreement is null and void in its entirety, twice declared that Section 4.04 was illegal, and recently declared that the section was not severable.}{
\cs16\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs16\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 The trial court relied upon these holdings, in addition to the substantial record and 
supplemental briefing and oral arguments presented at the final status hearing.}{\cs16\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs16\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Clearly the trial court \'93
weigh[ed] the relevant factors.\'94}{\cs16\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs16\i\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Id}{\cs16\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 .}{
\cs16\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Because the mandate in }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III }{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 did not specifically require the trial court to conduct a new trial or to hold an evidentiary hearing, it was within the trial court\rquote s discretion to determine the necessity of 
such proceedings.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Town House}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  at \'b6 22 (citing }{
\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Murray v. Murray,}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  856 P.2d 463, 466 (Alaska 1993) (explaining that 
a remand for additional findings does not obligate the trial court to hear new evidence).}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 T}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 he trial court}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 '}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 s consideration of additional briefing without
 conducting a new trial or holding an evidentiary hearing, is consistent with the specific mandate of }{\cs15\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III}{
\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  and thus, we find no abuse of discretion.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  
\par }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid420403 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 VI.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 CONCLUSION}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1536722 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid420403\charrsid1536722 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 [16]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 We find first that the mandate issued in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Pangelinan III }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 was a specific mandate that only ordered the trial court to take further judicial action.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Further, the decision of whether or not to conduct a new trial or hold an evidentiary hearing was in the sound discretion of the trial court.}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 The trial court 
took further judicial action and conducted further proceedings in holding a status hearing, requiring supplemental briefing, and taking into consideration the oral and written arguments of the parties prior to issuing a final judgment.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 We do not have a }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 definite and firm conviction that the trial 
court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722  }{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 Accordingly, the 
Judgment is }{\cs15\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722 AFFIRMED.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1536722\charrsid1536722  
\par 
\par }}