Lizama disappointed with Atalig in Malite case

Superior Court Associate Judge Juan T. Lizama has expressed disappointment with attorney Antonio M. Atalig’s handling of the Malite estate proceedings.

Lizama said it is surprising that Atalig would blatantly disregard the rules of professional conduct prohibiting a lawyer from serving simultaneously as witness and counsel.

Atalig’s statement regarding his conversation with William Nabors, the attorney listed as representing the Malite estate in the Trust Territory Court judgment, is hearsay not falling into any exception, said the judge in denying Malite estate’s motion for summary judgment.

Lizama said the estate’s motion for summary judgment filed by Atalig improperly characterizes several issues as undisputed facts.

First, the judge noted, the estate cannot rest on mere allegations to assert a lack of notice with respect to the TTC proceedings.

The estate, he said, has offered no evidence in support of its claim that, “the Malite’s were never given notice and the opportunity to be heard regarding their property,” other than the affidavits of two granddaughters of Angel Malite, neither of whom has personal knowledge of the TTC proceedings.

Lizama said the assertions of the granddaughters that, “according to my aunt, Joaquina Malite had no lawyers representing her in the condemnation action…My aunt never agreed to a compensation of …$3,682,” are hearsay that do not fall into any exception.

Lizama said it is also certainly not an “undisputed fact that…Marianas Public Lands Authority has exclusive jurisdiction in this land compensation matter.”

This issue, the judge pointed out, was settled in the Court’s March 22, 2005 order, which held that the delegation of power to MPLA under the Land Compensation Act to adjudicate land claims does not prevent the Office of the Attorney General from bringing the lawsuit.

In the same order, Lizama ruled that the Malite estate’s land compensation claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Attorney General Pamela Brown sued MPLA, its directors, and the Malite estate to prevent payment to the Malite estate $3.4 million in land compensation, which she described as “a spurious claim.”

Court records show that in 1978, the Trial Court of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands awarded the government a 1.7-acre plot of land formerly belonging to Angel Malite.

As compensation for this act of eminent domain, the TTC set aside $3,682. The Malite estate was not probated until 1997. None of the $3,682 was ever distributed to the Malite heirs. The location of the funds remains a mystery.

In 2004, the estate applied with the MPLA for compensation.