Gutierrez v. Guam Power Auth., (2013)

• Docket Number: Supreme Court Case No. CVA11-010,Superior Court Case No. CV0544-05
• Decision Date: 18 January 2013
• Parties: CARL T.C. GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUAM POWER AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Guam Supreme Court

CARL T.C. GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.GUAM POWER AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, Defendant-Appellee.

Supreme Court Case No. CVA11-010 Superior Court Case No. CV0544-05

SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

Filed: January 18, 2013

OPINION

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam

Argued and submitted on December 2, 2011

Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant:

F. Randall Cunliffe, Esq.

Cunliffe & Cook, P.C.

Appearing for Defendant-Appellee:

D. Graham Botha, Esq.

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Presiding Justice¹; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice; JOHN A. MANGLONA, JusticePro Tempore.

TORRES, J.:

[1]Plaintiff-AppellantCarl T.C. Gutierrez appeals from a final judgment of the trial court which held that the placement of power poles and transmission lines by Defendant-Appellee Guam Power Authority on Gutierrez's property, Lot 1-2-2, did not amount to a government taking of his private property.In so holding, the trial court found there was a valid license to construct and maintain power poles on the property before it was transferred to Gutierrez, that the transfer to Gutierrez was subject to the license, and that such license was irrevocable through the operation of estoppel.The court also held that the occupation was not substantial enough to interfere with Gutierrez's rights so as to constitute a taking, and even if there had been a taking, the court could not render an award of compensation because the governor, who was not a party in the case, was an indispensable party.Furthermore, the trial court held that even if there had been a taking, Gutierrez was not entitled to compensation because he failed to provide any evidence of fair rental value of the property for the period of the taking.

[2]We agree with the trial court that a license was created between the Navy and Guam Power Authority to construct and maintain power poles on Lot 1-2-2.We hold, however, that such license was not irrevocable and was not reserved in the subsequent conveyances of the property, and Gutierrez, who took the property without notice of the license, was not bound by the license.Guam Power Authority's occupation of the property constituted a compensable physical taking under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, and Gutierrez provided sufficient evidence upon which the trial court could determine the amount of compensation due for theinverse condemnation.Finally, we hold that the governor is not an indispensable party in this litigation.Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand on the issue of damages.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3]Lot 5014 #1-2-2 ("Lot 1-2-2"), containing an area of approximately 9,000 square meters, was originally registered under Certificate of Title No, 5682 by the United States, "acting by and through the Department of the Navy."Record on Appeal ("RA"), tab 49at 1(Def.'s Ex. 3, Department of Land Management ("DLM") Instr.No. 638645, Quitclaim Deed: Guam Economic Development Authority ("GEDA") to Guam Ancestral Lands Commission("GALC"), Sept. 4, 2007);RA, tab 55at 2(Finds. Fact & Concl.L., Mar. 28, 2011).During the time the Navy owned Lot 1-2-2,² the Navy gave Guam Power Authority ("GPA")"approval" to install concrete power poles and transmission lines on its properties as part of a joint project funded by both the Navy and GPA.RA, tab 55 at 4(Finds. Fact & Concl.L.);Transcript ("Tr.")at 78(Bench Trial, Oct. 10, 2007).

[4]About twelve years after GPA installed the poles and transmission lines, the United States transferred Lot 1-2-2 to GEDA by quitclaim deed.GEDA thereafter transferred Lot 1-2-2 to GALC, which in turn conveyed the property to Gutierrez by quitclaim deed on April 20, 2004.Soon after acquiring the property, Gutierrez hired a licensed surveyor, Frank L.G. Castro, to survey the property.Castro identified several concrete poles that were located on Lot 1-2-2, and not within the existing utility easement designated as Lot 1-2-1.Gutierrez claims he subsequently notified John Benavente, then-GPA general manager, that these power poles wereon Gutierrez's property rather than on the existing easement, and informed Benavente that a demand for rents was forthcoming.Gutierrez further alleges that he made the demand for rents in the amount of $2,500.00 per month for the portion of the property being used by GPA for the poles and transmission lines, but no payments were ever made.The power poles and transmission lines located on Lot 1-2-2 were eventually removed by GPA about three years after Gutierrez received the property.³

[5]Gutierrez filed an inverse condemnation claim against GPA, alleging that the placement of the power poles and transmission lines amounted to a governmental taking of his property.After a bench trial, the trial court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, holding that GPA's installation of power poles and transmission lines on Lot 1-2-2 did not constitute inverse condemnation.The court found that GPA had a valid license to construct and maintain power poles on the property.SeeRA, tab 55at 15(Finds. Fact & Concl.L.)("In this case, the testimony of Andriano E. Balajadia unambiguously establishes that permission/license was granted to the Defendant by the previous owner of Lot 1-2-2, the U.S. Naval government, to build power poles and transmission lines on a portion of Lot 1-2-2.").Moreover, the court held that Gutierrez was equitably estopped from ousting GPA and requesting damages for the use of the property because the license between the Navy and GPA had become irrevocable through estoppel.The court further held that the occupation was not substantial enough to interfere with Gutierrez's rights so as to constitute a taking.

[6]Moreover, the court found that even if there had been a taking of Gutierrez's property, the court could not render an award of compensation because the governor, who was not a party in the case, was an indispensable party under Rule 19(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure.Lastly, the court concluded that Gutierrez could not recover damages due to his failure to provide evidence of a reasonable fair rental value of the property.Judgment was entered, and Gutierrez timely appealed.

II.JURISDICTION

[7]This court has jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments of the trial court.48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-1(a)(2)(Westlaw through Pub. L. 112-207(2012));7 GCA §§ 3107, 3108(a)(2005).

III.STANDARD OF REVIEW

[8]A trial court's findings of fact after a bench trial are reviewed for clear error, while conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.Babauta v. Babauta, 2011 Guam 15¶ 19(citingMendiola v. Bell, 2009 Guam 15¶ 11), The question of whether there has been an inverse condemnation is a mixed question of law and fact.CUNA Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. L.A. Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth., 133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 470, 476(Ct. App.2003)(citingAll v.City of L.A.,91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 458, 461(Ct. App.1999)).Mixed questions of law and fact are subject to de novo review.Gov't of Guamv. 162.40Square Meters of Land, 2011 Guam 17¶ 6.Issues of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo.SeeSantos v. Gov't of Guam, 2012 Guam 9¶ 5 (citing Mesngon v. Gov't of Guam, 2003 Guam 3¶ 8.The indispensability of a party is a question of law reviewed de novo.Jourdan v. Nationsbanc Mortg. Corp., 42 P,3d 1072, 1079 n.22(Alaska2002)(citingSilvers v. Silvers, 999 P.2d 786, 792(Alaska2000));see alsoGuam Top Builders, Inc. v.Tanota Partners, 2012 Guam 12¶ 10(reviewing questions of law de novo).

IV.ANALYSIS

[9] Gutierrez contends the trial court erred in holding that the GPA power poles and transmission lines located on his property did not constitute a compensable taking by inverse condemnation, Gutierrez challenges the trial court's finding of a valid license granted to GPA by the Navy to construct and maintain the power poles on Lot 1-2-2.Appellant's Br.at 7-11(Sept. 1, 2011).Gutierrez also maintains that even if there had been a valid license, such license did not survive the subsequent conveyances of the property from the United States, acting by and through the Department of the Navy, to GEDA; from GEDA to GALC; and ultimately from GALC to Gutierrez, Id. at 12-14.Moreover, Gutierrez challenges the trial court's finding that the license was irrevocable through estoppel.Id. at 14-19.Gutierrez further contends that his inverse condemnation claim should not have been dismissed under Rule 19(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to join the governor as an indispensable party.Id. at 20-21, Lastly, Gutierrez asserts he presented sufficient evidence of fair rental value of the property upon which the trial court could determine the amount of compensation.Id. at 22-26.

A.Whether GPA Had a Valid License to Use Lot 1-2-2

[10]In rejecting Gutierrez's inverse condemnation claim, the trial court concluded that the Navy, the original owner of Lot 1-2-2, granted a license to GPA to install and maintain the power poles and transmission lines on Lot 1-2-2.RA, tab 55 at 15(Finds. Fact & Concl.L.).The court further found that the conveyance to Gutierrez was subject to this license and that the doctrine of equitable estoppel rendered the license irrevocable.Id. at 15-23.The court also held that GPA's occupation of the property was not substantial enough to constitute a taking.Id. at 31.

[11]Before we determine whether Gutierrez was entitled to an inverse condemnation claim, we must initially analyze whether there was a valid license to install and maintain power poles and transmission lines on Lot 1-2-2.If so, we must determine whether such license was binding on Gutierrez as a subsequent transferee, or, if not, whether the license nevertheless became irrevocable through estoppel.

1.License to Use Lot 1-2-2

[12]"A license in respect of real property . . . is permission to do an act or a series of acts upon the land of another without possessing any estate or interest in such land."Mueller v....