The Guam Economic Development and Commerce Authority is suing Affordable Home Builders Inc. Thomas “Tommy” V.C. Tanaka and Jane C. Tanaka for more than $3 million.

On May 18 during a scheduling hearing in front of Judge Arthur Barcinas GEDCA’s attorney requested a hearing date to have its case against the Tanakas and AHB heard. Jacques G. Bronze attorney and partner in the law firm of Bronze & Tang representing GEDCA received the date of Sept. 29 for jury selection and trial.GEDCA’s second amended complaint filed in August of 2001 alleged a breach of contract by Affordable Home Builders which does business as Guam Concrete Builders Inc. and Tommy Tanaka and Jane Tanaka. According to court documents “On or about Dec. 20 1996 plaintiff and defendant AHB entered into a loan agreement whereby plaintiff agreed to provide defendant AHB with a $360 000 line of credit and $1 200 000 term loan (the “loan agreement”).”

Court documents state AHB did not make any payments toward the loan and credit line notes. The first cause of action in the complaint reads “Defendant AHB promised to pay plaintiff pursuant to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and the credit line notes.” GEDCA also alleges AHB defaulted on a promissory note: “Defendant AHB breached its agreement to pay the debt pursuant to the loan agreement and the term note after demand was made for full payment to wit: defendant AHB failed to pay the amount owed and thus has breach its obligation to plaintiff.” GEDCA is also alleging a breach of contract by the Tanakas on their guaranty: “Defendants Thomas V.C. Tanaka and Jane C. Tanaka have failed and refused to abide by the terms of the guaranty agreement to wit: defendants Thomas V.C. Tanaka and Jane C. Tanaka refuse to pay the indebtedness of defendant AHB.”

In the fourth cause of action Bronze asked the court for attorney’s fees and costs. In the fifth cause of action GEDCA further seeks to obtain AHB assets in tangible goods “Plaintiff has exercised its option to repossess and/or foreclose its security interest in the collateral as described in the security agreement.” The sixth cause of action looks to obtain AHB account receivables contract rights and any and all related proceeds.

The seventh cause of action shows GEDCA alleging that committed fraud against the agency “Defendants’ expressly represented that the legal owner of the construction equipment was AHB. The representation was false and defendants’ knew it to be false at the time it was made and at all times mentioned in this complaint. In fact most of the equipment identified in the balance sheet as construction equipment was legally owned as of 1995 by Mr. Tanaka personally.” The eighth cause of action stated Tommy Tanaka allegedly defrauded GEDCA by representing the owner of construction equipment as AHB and not himself: “Had Plaintiff known the true facts regarding Mr. Tanaka’s representations GEDA would not have approved AHB’s loan.”

Court documents indicated GEDCA was asking the court to order the Tanakas and AHB to pay GEDCA amounts including $454 553.32 for general damages and breach of contract $1.5 million in punitive damages against AHB and Tommy Tanaka and $1 million in punitive damages against Tommy Tanaka personally. Court documents show GEDCA is also seeking amounts to be determined at trial attorney fees and costs and other damages.

The Tanaka family who is not represented declined to comment for the Journal. MBJ