Manglona v. Tenorio

Full title: GUADALUPE P. MANGLONA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARGARITA R. TENORIO…

Court: Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Date published: Sep 30, 2004

2004 MP 21 (N. Mar. I. 2004)

2004 N. Mar. I. LEXIS 19

7 N. Mar. I. 97

Opinion

Appeal No. 02-015-GA

September 16, 2004, Petition Submitted . September 30, 2004, Decided

For Plaintiff/Appellee: Michael W. Dotts, O'Connor Berman Dotts & Banes, Saipan, MP.

For Defendant/Appellant: G. Anthony Long, Saipan, MP.

BEFORE: MIGUEL S. DEMAPAN, Chief Justice; JESUS C. BORJA, Justice Pro Tempore; ANITA A. SUKOLA, Justice Pro Tempore.

DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

P1 Appellee Guadalupe P. Manglona ("Petitioner") petitions this Court for rehearing, claiming that our Opinion, Manglona v. Tenorio, 2004 MP 17, 7 N. Mar. I. 77, was based on our misunderstanding of the trial court's findings. We have reviewed the trial court's Partial Judgment and Order for Status Conference and we find no law or fact that we overlooked or misapprehended. Accordingly, we DENY this petition.

I.

P2 Petitioner claims that, contrary to this Court's conclusion, the trial court had not determined whether the parties had expressly or impliedly consented to trying the issue of unjust enrichment.

P3 However, the trial court rested its judgment on its finding of consent. In fact, the trial court concluded as follows: "pursuant to Com. R. Civ. P. 15(b) . . . this court GRANTS the plaintiff leave to amend her Complaint . . . ." Manglona v. Tenorio, Civ. No. 93-1061 (N.M.I. Super Ct. Jul. 31, 1995) (Partial Judgment and Order for Status Conference at 11). Rule 15(b) provides, "when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings." Here, the trial court made a finding of consent by the parties, and as we discussed previously in Manglona v. Tenorio, 2004 MP 17 P 13, 7 N. Mar. I. 77, the trial court's reasoning was flawed. There was neither express nor implied consent by the parties to try a claim of unjust enrichment, and as such, the trial court abused its discretion when it granted leave to amend the complaint.

II.

P4 For the reasons stated above, Petitioner has failed to show any points of law or fact that this Court overlooked or misapprehended. The Petition for Rehearing is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED THIS 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2004.

/s/ MIGUEL S. DEMAPAN

Chief Justice

/s/ JESUS C. BORJA

Justice Pro Tempore

/s/ ANITA A. SUKOLA

Justice Pro Tempore