Guam Supreme Court Affirms Superior Court Decision Denying Jesus’ Intervention in Pizarro v. Pizarro

427

Guam – The Guam Supreme Court has upheld the Superior Court denial of Jesus Pizarro’s motion to intervene in Pizarro versus Pizarro.

Jesus Pizarro is a Party-In-Interest who sought to intervene in a domestic case between Plaintiff-Appellee Marian Pizarro and Defendant-Appellee Michael Pizarro.

Jesus claimed that he was entitled to an intervention under Rule 24(a) and that barring intervention would preclude him from protecting his interest in certain accounts and investment property affected by the domestic case.

The Superior Court denied Jesus’ intervention, finding it untimely, and Jesus appealed that decision. 

The Guam Supreme Court upheld that decision in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Phil Carbullido and concurred by Justice Katherine Maraman and Justice Robert Torres. The Supreme Court also concluded that Jesus’ motion to intervene was untimely, particularly because Jesus lacked an adequate reason for waiting seven months to file his motion to intervene, despite his awareness of events that should have triggered a timelier filing.

Recognizing that trial courts are accorded broad discretion in deciding intervention matters, the Supreme Court held that the Superior Court properly exercised its discretion in denying Jesus’ intervention for untimeliness.

READ the Opinion in Pizarro v. Pizarro HERE

READ the release from the Guam Judiciary below:

SUPREME COURT OPINION ISSUED: Pizarro v. Pizarro, 2013 Guam 16

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — August 20, 2013 — The Supreme Court of Guam issued an opinion today in the case of Pizarro v. Pizarro, 2013 Guam 16. Real Party In Interest-Appellant Jesus Pizarro sought to intervene in a domestic case between Plaintiff-Appellee Marian Pizarro and Defendant-Appellee Michael Pizarro. Jesus claimed that he was entitled to an intervention of right under Rule 24(a) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure and that barring such intervention would preclude him from protecting his interest in certain accounts and investment property allegedly affected by the domestic case. The Superior Court denied Jesus’ intervention, finding it untimely, and Jesus appealed that decision.

In an opinion authored by Chief Justice F. Philip Carbullido and concurred by Justice Katherine A. Maraman and Justice Robert J. Torres, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision denying Jesus’ intervention. It, too, concluded that Jesus’ motion to intervene was untimely, particularly because Jesus lacked an adequate reason for waiting seven months to file his motion to intervene, despite his awareness of events that should have triggered a timelier filing. Recognizing that trial courts are accorded broad discretion in deciding intervention matters, the Supreme Court held that the Superior Court properly exercised its discretion in denying Jesus’ intervention for untimeliness.