We agree with the reasoning in Finch. In the instant case, where the Appellee has furnished such evidence in the nature of depositions and correspondence, and the Appellants have admitted a contractual relationship with the alleged alter ego RSG, we believe the trial court acted within its authority in determining the issue of alter ego in this execution proceeding. The final remaining issue is whether RSG is the alter ego of Romeo S. Go. Underwriters, Inc. v. Guam Int'l Insurers, Inc., Civ.
Fraudulent intent is also a factor to consider.
Additional evidence from the record demonstrates that the Liaison Contract between GEDA and GVB was entered on 1 April 1996, after the judgment was secured against Romeo S. Go. RSG was incorporated for the purpose of manufacturing baked goods. Yet the purpose of the Liaison Contract was not to manufacture baked goods, but to expand the tourism industry and to encourage business development on Guam. The trial court determined that piercing the corporate veil was necessary to avoid a grave injustice and to prevent a fraud. As a procedural matter, alter ego findings can be made in a garnishment proceeding.