Previous Story
MPLA ordered to pay land compensation
|
Posted on Aug 07 2005
The Superior Court ordered the Marianas Public Lands Authority Friday to pay a landowner at least $365,330 for the government’s land taking of his property over 10 years ago.
Associate Judge David Wiseman also ruled that Jose Ch. Camacho is entitled to interest payments for the delay in obtaining compensation for the land taking.
The amount of interest, though, would have to be determined at trial, the judge added.
The court partially granted summary judgment in favor of Camacho, whose three parcels of land with an aggregate area of 737-sqm the government expropriated for public purpose.
Camacho’s attorney, Robert T. Torres, had asked the court for summary judgment, asserting that his client deserves just compensation for the land taking.
Torres had argued that the just compensation requires something more than the fair market value at the time of the land taking due to the long delay in compensating Camacho.
The court had junked the MPLA’s request to dismiss the case, ruling that it is a proper party to the lawsuit. Court records showed that the MPLA’s predecessor agency, the Marianas Public Lands Corp., agreed to compensate Camacho.
“The United States Constitution provides that where the government requires a land owner to suffer permanent physical invasion of his property, however minor, the government must provide just compensation,” Wiseman said.
“The court determines that the $90 per square meter for a fee simple interest and an additional $299,000 severance damage amount offered to and accepted by [Camacho] is the proper measure of the value of the three lots comprising the 737-sqm of [his] land taken for public use,” the judge added.
While the judge ruled that delay in payment by the government does not constitute breach of contract, Wiseman said Camacho is entitled to interest payment, which would put him in a position as good as being compensated in a timely manner.
“[Camacho] is entitled to interest on monies owed him by MPLA; however, the amount due is a question of fact to be determined at trial,” the judge said.
