Does postdating a check work

On the other hand, we hold that the circuit court correctly ruled that the jury’s verdict in this case precluded a finding of liability against Imelda for fraudulent conveyances.

With regard to the plaintiffs-appellees’ second point of error, we hold that the circuit court erred in its instructions regarding the value to be assigned to the converted property, although we adopt a rule different than that advocated by the plaintiffs-appellees.

Therefore, we remand the matter for the entry of an award of prejudgment interest in GBC’s favor with respect to the converted property. Most of the trial testimony relevant to this appeal and cross-appeal was introduced by way of the depositions of various witnesses (including, most crucially, Rogelio Roxas), which were read to the jury.

Armed with Fuchugami’s description of his father’s maps and Ocubo’s representations, Roxas organized a group of partners and laborers to search for the treasure and obtained a permit for the purpose from Judge Pio Marcos, a relative of Ferdinand.

Judge Marcos informed Roxas that, in accordance with Philippine law, a thirty-percent share of any discovered treasure would have to be paid to the government.

At around the same time, Roxas met Eusebio Ocubo, who claimed to have served as General Yamashita’s interpreter during World War II.

Ocubo advised Roxas that, during the war, he had been taken to some tunnels controlled by General Yamashita, in order to retrieve silver to pay for food for the Japanese troops.

Accordingly, we remand for a new trial on the limited question of the proper valuation of the converted property.

Finally, we hold that the circuit court abused its discretion in failing to award prejudgment interest to GBC with respect to the damages resulting from the conversion of Roxas’s property.

Accordingly, this court has been left to piece together crucial portions of the trial record through a maze of designations, counterdesignations, objections, and rulings spread in no particular order throughout thousands of pages of transcripts and more than twelve hours of videotaped testimony.

This is not an appropriate means of preparing a record for review on appeal.

With regard to the plaintiffs-appellees’ first point of error, we agree that conversion is not, pursuant to Philippine law, a condition precedent to liability based on a theory of constructive trust and that the circuit court erred in so ruling.

Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the amended judgment entered in Imelda’s favor on GBC’s claim based on constructive trust and remand for further proceedings before the circuit court sitting in equity.

The plaintiffs-appellees cross-appeal from: (1) that portion of the amended judgment (a) entered in favor of Imelda, in her individual capacity, and against the plaintiffs-appellees and (b) ordering the Marcos Estate to pay damages for conversion in the amount of ,001,405,000.00; (2) the circuit court’s order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs-appellees’ motion for an award of prejudgment interest; and (3) the circuit court’s order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs-appellees’ motion to alter the judgment.

Comments are closed.