Wiseman stands by ruling that signature was forged

Superior Court Pro Tempore Judge David A. Wiseman is standing by his previous ruling that a deed of gift that Sen. Paul A. Manglona (Ind-Rota) has been showing as proof that his mother gave him a piece of land on Upper Capitol Hill in 1985 is a forgery.

In rejecting Manglona’s arguments in his motion for reconsideration, Wiseman ruled that there is no manifest injustice or clear error in his decision.

In opposing Manglona’s assertions, Wiseman said he exercised his own independent analysis and examination of the record in reaching his decision.

The judge said that, after reviewing the remainder of Manglona’s arguments, those arguments are mere repetitions of arguments already made at the trial or they should have been made during the trial.

“The court will not hear new arguments on already decided issues and will not rehear previously made arguments,” said Wiseman, citing a Superior Court precedent.

If Manglona wishes to have those issues reconsidered, he will have to appeal, Wiseman said.

Manglona sued his siblings over the disputed 4,181-square meter property on Upper Capitol Hill. The senator asked the court to declare him the owner of the property by virtue of the 1985 deed of gift.

The defendants in this case are siblings Priscilla M. Torres, Thomas A. Manglona, Vincent A. Manglona, and Associate Justice John A. Manglona.

Charles A. Manglona and Prudencio A. Manglona Jr. are not referred to as defendants in this matter as they are not claiming that the deed of gift is a forgery.

Priscilla Manglona Torres and Thomas A. Manglona, co-administrators of the estate of their late mother, asserted that their brother, Paul Manglona, does not inherit the disputed land in its entirety as their mother’s signature had been forged.

Defendants asserted that at least 50 percent of the disputed property had already been conveyed to them in equal shares through a July 26, 2013, deed of gift signed by their father, Prudencio Manglona.

In his decision last May, Wiseman ruled in favor of Sen. Manglona’s siblings.

Wiseman ruled that that, sincethe signature of Paul Manglona’s mother, Bernadita Manglona, in the deed of gift dated July 1, 1985, is a forgery, the transaction (deed) is null and void.

Wiseman said that, after listening to the testimony and reviewing the transcript multiple times, he finds handwriting expert Reed Hayes’ testimony credible.

Hayes, who is the defendants’ handwriting expert, testified that after analyzing the 18 known signature exemplars of Bernadita Manglona and the 1985 deed, he concluded that she did not sign the deed.

Bernadita Manglona passed away on May 30, 2009. Bernadita Manglona’s husband, Prudencio T. Manglona, passed away on June 3, 2014.

Wiseman determined that Paul Manglona’s testimony lacked credibility.

Paul Manglona, through counsel Mark Scoggins, then filed a motion asking Wiseman to reconsider.

In Paul Manglona’s motion for reconsideration, Scoggins argued that Wiseman essentially took the defendants’ arguments “verbatim” and did not exercise his own independent analysis and examination of the record in reaching his decision.

In his order last week that granted and denied in part Paul Manglona’s motion for reconsideration, Wiseman said just because a party is asked to submit proposed findings, that party is not entitled to have any of their proposed findings accepted.

In fact, Wiseman said, even the winning party is not entitled to have their propositions accepted without the court’s scrutiny.

Wiseman said it just so happens that he felt the defendants’ propositions in this matter were correct and true.

Thus, the judge said, it should not be surprising that the language from the defendants’ proposed findings is similar to his findings.

Wiseman pointed out that he can only say that the defendants prevailed in so many ways.

Wiseman said with regards to Paul Manglona’s argument that the court’s findings are owed less deference because of the similarity, he disagrees.

The judge pointed out that there is nothing in the Commonwealth Rules of Civil Procedure and nothing in CNMI jurisprudence that accords his findings of facts and conclusions of lawless deference because of the similarities.

Wiseman also noted that the trial ended on Nov. 13, 2018, and the parties’ proposed findings of fact of conclusions of law were filed on Jan. 15, 2019.

Wiseman said he issued the decision on May 13, 2019.

During that lengthy period, the judge said, he examined the record, transcripts, and the parties’ arguments extensively.

Wiseman said Paul Manglona’s claims that the court took defendants’ proposed findings “verbatim” is simply not true.

During that extended period, Wiseman said, he made numerous adjustments, changes, and rewrites of his findings.

He also stated that he thoroughly reviewed every assertion and statement of law and fact made in his findings.

On the issue of judicial notice, Wiseman conceded that he should not have referenced Prudencio Manglona Jr.’s testimony in a separate civil case.

Further, he said, Paul Manglona is correct that judicial notice is not appropriate in this circumstance.

Wiseman said he will strike that particular section referencing Prudencio Manglona Jr.’s testimony and will issue an amended findings of fact and conclusion of law.

However, Wiseman said, the removal of that section and his analysis from his findings does not change his decision in this matter.

Clearly, Wiseman said, he did not solely or substantially rely on Prudencio Manglona Jr.’s credibility or testimony from the separate civil case as evidenced by the court’s other findings, which more importantly included Paul Manglona’s credibility and that of the other several witnesses.