People of Guam v. Duayne Richard Peters

E-FILED CNMI SUPREME COURT E-filed: Jun 25 2025 02:15PM Clerk Review: Jun 25 2025 02:15PM Filing ID: 76525598 Case No.: 2022-SCC-0016-CIV Judy Aldan IN THE Supreme Court OF THE Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands SECUNDINA UNTALAN PANGELINAN AND SELINA MARIE PANGELINAN, Plaintiff-Appellees, v. JOHN SABLAN PANGELINAN, Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court No. 2022-SCC-0016-CIV ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING Cite as: 2025 MP 3 Decided June 25, 2025 ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERRY B. INOS JUSTICE PRO TEMPORE ROBERT J. TORRES, JR. JUSTICE PRO TEMPORE WESLEY M. BOGDAN Superior Court Civil Action No. 17-0067 Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho, Presiding  Pangelinan v. Pangelinan, 2025 MP 3 INOS, J.: ¶1 Appellant John Sablan Pangelinan (“Appellant” or “John”) petitions for rehearing, focusing primarily on our previous holdings that his quiet title action was barred by issue preclusion and that the lower court properly set aside the entry of default against Appellees Secundina and Selina Pangelinan (“Appellees”). For the below reasons, his petition is DENIED. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The full facts of this case and relevant probate decisions are detailed in Pangelinan v. Pangelinan, 2024 MP 5 and In re Estate of Norberto Eduardo Pangelinan, Civ. No. 15-0169 (NMI Super. Ct. Dec. 19, 2016) (Decree of Final Distribution); In re Estate of Norberto Eduardo Pangelinan, Civ. No. 15-0169 (NMI Super. Ct. Dec. 19, 2016) (Order Determining Heir and Approving the Lease and Sale of Real Property); In re Estate of Norberto Eduardo Pangelinan, Civ. No. 15-0169 (NMI Super. Ct. Dec. 19, 2016) (Order Denying John S. Pangelinan’s Motions for Reconsideration). For purposes of this petition, we briefly summarize the relevant facts. In 2017, Appellees sued John in the Superior Court, claiming, among other things, damages for abuse of process based on John’s actions during the probate of Norberto Eduardo Pangelinan— Appellees’ husband and father, respectively, and John’s first cousin. ¶3 John responded by filing counterclaims, including a quiet title action to land subject to the probate of Norberto’s estate. Shortly thereafter, he amended his answer and counterclaim. In response, Appellees moved to dismiss the counterclaims, but filed their motion three days late, having miscalculated the deadline by relying on the date of the amended counterclaims, rather than the original counterclaims. Consequently, the clerk entered a default against them, and John moved for entry of default judgment. ¶4 Appellees moved to set aside the entry of default, which the court granted. The court also granted their motion to dismiss, holding that the quiet title claim was barred under the doctrine of issue preclusion. The case proceeded to a bench trial on the remaining claims, after which the court found John liable for abuse of process. The court later awarded Appellees $52,756.49 in damages against John. ¶5 John appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in setting aside the entry of default and dismissing his quiet title action on issue preclusion grounds. After briefing and oral argument, we affirmed the lower court’s decision in an opinion issued on September 23, 2024. John timely filed a petition for rehearing. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶6 A petition for rehearing “must state with particularity each point of law or fact that the petitioner believes the Court has overlooked or misapprehended and must argue in support of the petition. Oral argument is not permitted.” NMI SUP. CT. R. 40(a)(2). A party may not reassert previously raised arguments or raise new issues unless extraordinary circumstances exist. Commonwealth v. Reyes, 2020 MP 6 ¶ 7.  Pangelinan v. Pangelinan, 2025 MP 3 III. DISCUSSION A. We did not overlook or misapprehend any point of law or fact in affirming the lower court’s decision to set aside the entry of default. ¶7 John first argues that Appellees’ default in answering his counterclaim cannot be set aside—an assertion that, if accepted, would require us to nullify Rule 55(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and contravene our test for setting aside entries of de

For Publication IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS BRUCE W. STREIBICH S. Ct. Civ. No. 2024-0043 Appellant/Defendant ) Re: Super. Ct. Civ. No. 459/1995 y )) (STI) CHARLES A. KAPLANEK, III, ) Appellee/Plaintiff, and ) WARREN STRYKER AND MARGARET ) STRYKER Appellees/Intervening Plaintiffs, ) ) ARTHUR SCHMAUDER, ELIZABETH MCGUIRE, AND BLUE WATERS RETREAT ) LLC, ) Intervening Defendants. ! ) On Appeal from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands Division of St. Thomas & St. John Superior Court Judge: Hon. Renee Gumbs Carty Argued: April 8, 2025 Filed: June 4, 2025 Cite as: 2025 VI 13 BEFORE RHYS S. HODGE, Chief Justice, HON. MARIA M. CABRET, Associate Justice; and HON. HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS, Associate Justice APPEARANCES Carol Ann Rich, Esq. (Argued) Malorie Winne Diaz, Esq Dudley Rich LLP St. Thomas, U.S.V.1 Attorney for Appellant/Defendant, Matthew J. Duensing, Esq. (Argued) Joseph D. Sauerwein, Esq Law Offices of Duensing & Casner St. Thomas, U.S.V.I Attorney for Appellee/Plaintiff and Appellees/Intervening Plaintiffs ' The intervening defendants in the underlying lawsuit are not parties in this appeal Streibich v. Kaplanek, et al 2025 VI 13 S. Ct. Civ. No. 2024-0043 Opinion of the Court Page 2 of 22 OPINION OF THE COURT WILLOCKS, Associate Justice q1 Appellant Bruce W. Streibich (hereinafter “Streibich”) appeals from the June 25, 2024 order of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands (hereinafter “Superior Court”) holding Streibich in contempt for violating the Superior Court’s April 29, 2024 order and declaratory judgment I. BACKGROUND? 42 The lengthy history of this litigation began in June 1995 when Karen R. Underwood (hereinafter “Underwood” filed a complaint against Streibich and Katharine H. Streibich* for a declaratory judgment of an easement in connection with Underwood’s property located at Parcel No. 4-27, Estate Tabor and Harmony, Nos. 5 & 6 East End Quarter, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands (hereinafter “Parcel No. 4-27”) and Streibich and Katharine H. Streibich’s property located at Parcel No. 4-26.° The gravamen of the lawsuit was whether an easement exists across Parcel No. 4-26 for the benefit of Parcel No. 4-27. While Underwood referenced several maps in her complaint, of relevance here is the PWD B9-31-T5S7 map (hereinafter “T57 Map’) which depicts the planned subdivision of the property that resulted in, inter alia, Parcel Nos. 4-26 and 4-27, and 2 This Court will recite only those facts and procedural history relevant to this instant appeal. To construct a more comprehensive and accurate background, this Court takes judicial notice of other courts’ dockets and papers. See Cianci v. Chaput, 64 V.I. 682, 690 n.2 (V.I. 2016) (recognizing that courts may take judicial notice of other courts' dockets and papers); cf King v. Appleton, 61 V.1. 339, 348 (V.I. 2014) (“[T]he Superior Court may take judicial notice of the existence of a document that has been filed with it in another proceeding.”’) (quotation marks and citation omitted) 3 On March 4, 2022, the Superior Court entered an order in which it found that Underwood's son Charles Anthony Kaplanek, III (hereinafter “Kaplanek”) was the real party in interest with respect to Parcel No. 4-27 since “Underwood deeded her interest in the property to him on June 30, 2016, by deed recorded as Document No. 2016004645” and thus, the court substituted Kaplanek in place of Underwood as the plaintiff but ordered that “the original Plaintiff's name shall remain” in the caption. For the sake of clarity and accuracy, this Court will refer to Kaplanek (owner of Parcel No. 4-27) instead of Underwood as the appellee in this appeal to reflect the proper party * Katharine H. Streibich passed away in February 1999 > Unless otherwise noted, all parcels referenced herein are located at Estate Tabor and Harmony, Nos. 5 & 6 East End Quarter, St. Thomas, U.