In re Western Sales Trading Co. v. GenPro International, Inc. (Guam) (2021)
Citation: 2021 Guam 7 (Supreme Court Case No. CVA19-023; Superior Court Case No. SP0058-18) · Court: Supreme Court of Guam (Carbullido, C.J.; Maraman, J.; Camacho, J. Pro Tem.; opinion by Maraman, J.) · Decided: 2021 (argued May 27, 2020; the official opinion PDF retrieved 2026-10-18 prints no filing date, so no day is stated here)
Facts
Western Sales Trading Co. (WSTCO), the former Guam distributor of 7D Dried Mangoes, obtained a default judgment of USD 972,264.54 against the Philippine producer 7D Food and could not collect it. GenPro, a Guam importer, bought 7D Dried Mangoes from 7D Food’s successor, FPD Food. WSTCO petitioned under Guam’s “Protection Against Recalcitrant Judgment Debtors” statute, 7 GCA §§ 23401–23406 (added by P.L. 34-077:2, Feb. 9, 2018), and the Superior Court ordered GenPro to turn the mangoes over to WSTCO under § 23404, giving GenPro only a lien for its acquisition cost (opinion ¶¶ 1, 3–5).
Holding
The turnover statute, 7 GCA §§ 23401–23406, is unconstitutional and inorganic: by allowing a judgment creditor to take property that a third party bought from the judgment debtor, it effects a taking that fails both the “public use” and the “just compensation” requirements of the Fifth Amendment and the Organic Act (48 U.S.C. § 1421b(f), (u)). The judgment was reversed with directions to dismiss the special proceeding (¶¶ 14–15, 31, 36, 38). The Contracts Clause challenge was not reached (¶ 37).
Reasoning
The court held that a court-ordered transfer under the statute is government action that takes private property, including personal property such as dried fruit (citing Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 576 U.S. 350 (2015)) (¶ 14). A transfer from one private party to another solely to pay a private judgment serves no public use (¶¶ 26–31). And the statute’s compensation formula — a lien for the third party’s “cost in acquiring the assets” or “purchase price” under § 23404(b)(1), (3), with no interest for delay — is not fair-market-value just compensation (¶¶ 32–36).
Practical impact
- Buyer / operator: a person who bought goods, vehicles or equipment from a Guam judgment debtor cannot be compelled under §§ 23401–23406 to hand them over to the debtor’s judgment creditor. The statute remains printed in the Guam Code Annotated but has been held invalid in its entirety. Other creditor remedies (levy before transfer, fraudulent-transfer claims) are unaffected by this holding.
- Judgment creditor: reach the debtor’s property by writ of execution and levy before it is sold (7 GCA §§ 23109, 23112), or by a fraudulent-transfer action, rather than by a § 23404 turnover against a purchaser.
Good-law status
needs_verification for later judicial treatment. The full official opinion was
independently retrieved on 2026-10-17; ¶¶ 15, 31, 36 and 38 support the invalidity
holding. Amendment-table review alone is not subsequent-treatment research.
Applies in →
guam · court-ordered-administrative-and-creditor-sales · personal-property-execution-sales-by-state
Legal information, not legal advice. Summarized from the opinion PDF published by the Judiciary of Guam, independently retrieved in full 2026-10-17 and re-retrieved and re-read 2026-10-18 (retained in
schema/verification/guam-evidence-2026-10-18/cases/).