MPLA appeals court’s land payment order

With its land compensation funds nearly depleted, the Marianas Public Lands Authority is seeking reconsideration of a court order directing it to pay a landowner at least $365,330 for the government’s taking of his property over 10 years ago.

But Robert Torres, attorney for Jose Ch. Camacho, opposed the MPLA’s request, saying it was untimely filed. Torres also said the Superior Court has already set a trial that will determine the interest on monies owed by the MPLA to Camacho, when MPLA counsel Ramon Quichocho failed to appear in a scheduled status conference recently.

In a memorandum supporting his motion for reconsideration, Quichocho said the court should refrain from “commandeering” the MPLA’s land compensation program.

He said the court committed clear error when it determined the value of the lots taken from Camacho without an appraisal report. He also pinpointed the court’s alleged error when it stated in its order that the MPLA—instead of Cabrera—sought the imposition of sanctions against the opposing party.

Quichocho said the Department of Public Works, not the MPLA, took Camacho’s three As Lito lots with an aggregate area of 737 square meters sometime in 1990. Sometime in 1991, he said, then Gov. Lorenzo I. DeLeon Guerrero signed a certification for land exchange regarding Camacho’s properties. Quichocho said Camacho accepted the then Marianas Public Lands Commission’s offer for land exchange, not cash compensation.

MPLA’s attorney said, though, that the agency offered Camacho cash compensation in 2002, but Camacho allegedly rejected the offer. He said Camacho never appealed the matter before the MPLA.

“Even if there was a contract between MPLA and Camacho in the early 1990s, there is still no valid and/or enforceable contract at this time because ‘statutes and rules and regulations governing land or cash compensation were violated and ignored,’” Quichocho said. He said there is a six-year limit in seeking the enforcement of contracts.

Torres rebutted Quichocho’s arguments, saying that the award of compensation to Camacho arises not from a contract, but from the landowner’s constitutional right to just compensation for the government’s taking of his property for public purpose.

“MPLA now makes this noisy argument that the court has somehow commandeered MPLA’s role in the land compensation program. This claim is nothing but the empty histrionic gyrations of MPLA. The court found that MPLA made an offer to Mr. Camacho for a…sum, for compensation for the taking of land, and ruled that Mr. Camacho is now entitled to sum…offered by MPLA and accepted by Mr. Camacho,” Torres said.

Torres also said that, while the MPLA pointed to the DPW as the agency that took Camacho’s land, the MPLA never filed any cross-claim against the DPW.

“MPLA missed the point: the Commonwealth government took Mr. Camacho’s land. The last time Mr. Camacho checked MPLA, it is still a part of the Commonwealth government. However, it was MPLC which offered the compensation to Mr. Camacho on behalf of the CNMI government,” Torres said. He noted that the DPW never opposed Camacho’s lawsuit.

Besides saying that the MPLA filed it reconsideration request late, Torres also said that no attorney representing the MPLA and DPW appeared in a scheduled status conference on Aug. 18, 2005. With Camacho and him present in that proceeding, Torres said the court set a bench trial beginning Sept. 13, 2005, which would determine the interest owed by the MPLA to his client.

“The court dispensed justice when MPLA sought to further frustrate a landowner’s entitled amount for compensation offered to him by a government agency,” Torres said. “All that remains now and all that remains to determine is the appropriate rate of interest under the ‘take now and pay later’ rule to be in fact just compensation.”

Torres belittled Quichocho’s allegation of court error when it stated that the MPLA, instead of Camacho, requested for sanctions. He said the MPLA suffered no prejudice in the error, which he described as simply clerical.

Associate Judge David Wiseman had ruled in favor of Camacho, saying that the government is constitutionally mandated to provide just compensation to a landowner for physical invasion of the latter’s private property.

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.