ASSOCIATE Judge Joseph N. Camacho has denied the claims of former Rep. Alice Igitol in the Estate of Estanislao Norita Kalen.
In his 16-page order, the judge dismissed the 30-year-old claim of Igitol, the administrator of her husband Victorino Nekai Igitol’s estate.
The judge said the claim is based on an undocumented 1992 transaction, and an invalid 2006 promissory note.
Moreover, the judge said the claim is time-barred, and the Estate of Victorino Nerkai Igitol is not a creditor and cannot participate in the probate of the Estate of Estanislao Norita Kalen.
Based on the testimony and exhibits admitted at the evidentiary hearing, as well as the law and rules of probate, Judge Camacho concluded that there is no credible tangible evidence that the “undocumented January 1992 transaction was a loan”; such a claim, moreover, is barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to 7 CMC Sections 2504 and 2505 as well as the Limitation on Presentation of Claims in 8 CMC Section 2924(a)(1).
The judge said the 2006 promissory note signed by Resly J. Kalen is not valid against the Estate of Estanislao Norita Kalen.
Resly J. Kalen was appointed executrix of the Estate of Estanislao Norita Kalen on June 19, 2002
Judge Camacho said the Estate of Victorino Nekai Igitol does not have a claim against the Estate of Estanislao Norita Kalen.
According to Alice Igitol, she and husband Vic leased their Saipan beachside property in the early 1990s and received $9 million in exchange.
The Igitols then “engaged in a process of giving or loaning money to family members,” amounting to about $600,000.
In January 1992, Vic and Alice visited Estanislao Kalen, and gave $12,480 to Estanislao.
Alice Igitol, at the evidentiary hearing, testified that the money given by the Igitols to Estanislao was a loan, with Vic and Alice as the lenders and Estanislao as the borrower.
Judge Camacho, however, noted that there is no documentation of this purported loan.
In July 1992, the Igitols moved from Saipan to Washington state.
No payments were made by or on behalf of Estanislao on the purported loan, and there is no evidence that any action was taken on the alleged loan by the Igitols, either to collect, waive, or abandon their claim on the loan, the judge said.
Estanislao Norita Kalen died on Nov. 10, 1999 in Saipan.
There was conflicting evidence about when the Igitols learned of the death of Estanislao, whether it was when the Igitols were still in Washington state in 1999 or upon their return to Saipan in 2001.
A notice to creditors in the Estate of Estanislao Norita Kalen was published in a local newspaper on March 8, 2002.
By 2002, the Igitols had already returned to the Commonwealth and were living in Saipan. No notice was personally served on Vic and Alice. The only notice given to creditors was the Notice to Creditors published in the newspaper.
A hearing on the petition for letters of administration, filed on Jan.17, 2002, was held on April 16, 2002.
Estanislao’s will was admitted into evidence and Resly J. Kalen was appointed executrix of the estate.
Two years after the probate of the estate was opened, Resly signed a promissory note to the Igitols on Feb. 18, 2006.
Although Resly signed above a signature line that read “heirs of Stanislao Kalen,” neither the Estate of Kalen nor the probate case Civil Action No. 02-0038 was mentioned in the 2006 promissory note.
There is no mention of an alleged loan to Estanislao in the 2006 promissory note, the judge said. Nor is there any mention of consideration for the principal amount of the 2006 promissory note, other than the amount and the words “value received,” the judge added.
The 2006 promissory note calls for biweekly installment payments of $50, starting on March 15, 2006.
But the 2006 promissory note does not name the “heirs of Stanislao Kalen.”
Florenzo, an heir of decedent Estanislao, did not sign the 2006 promissory note. Likewise, the other heirs of the decedent Estanislao, as identified in the family tree of Estanislao Norita Kalen, did not sign the 2006 promissory note.
“At no time has the court authorized Executrix Resly to sign a promissory note or otherwise enter into a payment agreement to the Igitols on behalf of the Estate of Kalen or for the heirs of the decedent. Nor was there any motion made by the Executrix Resly to ratify the promissory note as a debt of the Estate of Kalen,” the judge said.
No payments were ever made on the 2006 promissory note, and no legal action was initiated by the Igitols to enforce the 2006 promissory note, the judge added.
Victorino Nekai Igitol died intestate or without a will on June 17, 2014, in Saipan. Alice, his wife, was appointed administratrix of the Estate of Victorino Nekai Igitol on Nov. 30, 2017, in Civil Case No. 17-0259.
On Dec. 22, 2020, the Executrix Resly filed the inventory of the Estate of Kalen. Included in this inventory is payment of $89,793.05 for land compensation to the Estate of Kalen for land taken by the Commonwealth government.
Within a month of the Estate of Kalen receiving $89,793.05 in land compensation, on Jan. 20, 2021, Alice filed a claim on behalf of the Estate of Igitol.
On May 6, 2021 at the hearing, Alice submitted into evidence a 1995 lease agreement between Lao and Tokai Saipan Inc. She said the lease indicates that the undocumented January 1992 transaction between the Igitols and Estanislao was a loan.
But Judge Camacho said he did not find Alice Igitol’s testimony credible.
“There is no connection between the undocumented January 1992 purported loan transaction and 1995 lease from Estanislao to Tokai Saipan Inc.,” the judge added.
He said the court does find a more credible connection between the Estate of Kalen receiving $89,793.05 in land compensation payments and Alice filing a claim on behalf of the Estate of Igitol.
“Alice’s claim is based on a purported loan from Vic and Alice to [Estanislao] for the amount of $12,480, and Alice claims the loan happen almost 30 years ago, with absolutely no paperwork or documentation to prove such a loan…took place. With the Estate of Kalen recently flushed with land compensation money, a sudden appearance of large amount of money can pique the interest of certain individuals to file a claim even if such a claim is based on a purported undocumented loan almost 30 years ago,” the judge added.
Resly J. Kalen was represented by attorney Joaquin Torres. Legal guardian Sofina Quitugua Tomokane appeared on behalf of heir Florenzo Ilisari Norita and was represented by attorney Jane Mack. Alice Igitol represented herself.
In July 2021, Judge Camacho denied Alice Igitol’s $162,521 claim against the estate of Leo Sablan Pangelinan.
The judge said he denied the claim for three reasons: (1) Igitol missed the 60-day deadline, (2) contract cases have a six-year statute of limitations, and (3) laches or undue delay in asserting a legal right or privilege.
Igitol’s 25-year-old claim, in that case, was based on a 1995 promissory note.
