MPLA found liable to pay $444K, scolded for ‘feckless arguments’

The Superior Court yesterday found the Marianas Public Lands Authority liable to pay landowner Antonio CH. Camacho $444,210 in just compensation plus interest over the taking of his two parcels of land.

Associate Judge David A. Wiseman described MPLA’s arguments as “repetitious yet unavailing” and warned its counsel, attorney Ramon Quichocho, that any further “questionable filings” shall be met with sanctions that may include awarding attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.

Wiseman awarded Camacho $68,040 for the taking of his 756 square meters of land, $28,170 for 313 square meters of land, and $348,000 in severance damages.

Camacho is also entitled to a 3-percent pre-judgment interest compounded annually commencing June 11, 1991, and a 9-percent per annum post-judgment interest, said Wiseman in granting Camacho’s motion for summary judgment.

Wiseman said the undisputed facts demonstrate that the Department of Public Works and subsequently other CNMI agencies invaded Camacho’s land by using it to construct roadways and route various utility easements. “It was therefore subject to a government taking, compensable under the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution,” he said.

Wiseman determined that the Marianas Public Lands Corp.’s original 1991 valuation, which coincided with the then governor’s certification of the taking, properly determined the “fair market value” of Camacho’s property.

The judge said the CNMI took Camacho’s land in 1991 and as of today has yet to compensate him for it.

“Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to interest in an amount that would place him in as good a position as if he had been compensated at the time of taking,” he said.

Court records show that Camacho was the legal owner of the two parcels of land. In 1990, DPW executed an acquisition agreement to acquire the property for a utility easement and public right-of-way for a paved road.

Following the agreement, DPW immediately entered the property and constructed a paved road. Other public agencies have since entered the property to erect utility lines and other infrastructure while also removing soil and vegetation.

The agreement was followed with a June 11, 1991, certification for land exchange from then Gov. Lorenzo I. Deleon Guerrero issued to a William R. Concepcion, executive director of MPLC, and MPLA predecessor.

The governor stated that it was “an absolute necessity” that the Camacho property be acquired by the government “for a public purpose.”

MPLC commissioned P&R Enterprise to do an appraisal of the land, which gave a total just compensation appraisal of $38,000 for the 313 square meters of land and $310,000 for the 756 square meters of land.

Based on that appraisal, MPLC used the market approach to determine the fair market value as of Oct. 17, 1991. Consistent with its determination, MPLC offered the sum of $90 per square meter plus severance damages in the amount of $348,000.

Camacho accepted MPLC’s offer but MPLC failed to tender payment to Camacho. Instead, in January 1993, MPLC issued another offer letter to plaintiff, which valued Camacho’s land at $150 per square meter, and offered him public land in the Obyan area in exchange for the land.

Again, Camacho agreed to the offer. MPLC approved the land exchange offer.

In 1994, MPLC entered into an agreement with Pacific Resort Development Inc. and Haas & Haynie Resorts for a public lease of land that included the Obyan area offered to Camacho.

MPLC and DPW offer no explanation regarding their failure to tender performance.

In May 2004, Camacho sued MPLA and DPW. The plaintiff, through counsel Perry B. Inos, moved for summary judgment.

In his order yesterday, Wiseman said a court may grant summary judgment when there are no issues as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Wiseman said this case presents facts directly analogous to a civil lawsuit involving plaintiff’s brother, Jose, who also had land taken by the government and was subsequently awarded the court compensation for the taking.

The judge noted that, even after explaining the striking similarities between the cases of Jose and Antonio Camacho, and of the likelihood of a strikingly similar disposition, MPLA has nevertheless chosen to fully contest plaintiff’s lawsuit at substantial cost to the taxpayer.

In Jose Camacho’s case, Wiseman pointed out, MPLA erroneously relied on Jose Camacho’s alleged failure to exhaust his administrative remedies through the MPLA in its failed motion to dismiss the suit.

Then, the judge said, as if a sudden sea change had occurred in the Superior Court in a matter of weeks, MPLA again relied on its “failure to exhaust argument” in its opposition to Antonio Camacho’s motion for summary judgment.

“This court still struggles to identify a single justification for the MPLA’s feckless renewal of this argument, which has been firmly disposed by the court,” he said.

Hoping to prevent a rerun of what he described as “a stubborn and costly motion battle which consumed the court and the parties in Jose Camacho’s case,” Wiseman admonished the parties, particularly Quichocho, to present and argue only those issues and interpretations of the law which would actually change the disposition of this case from the disposition in Jose Camacho’s case.

“Despite the court’s admonition, the briefing of this case—a case which potentially could have raised unique and sophisticated questions of law—was reduced to disputations of irrelevant facts, disorganized logic, and repetition of arguments which have long shed their luster,” Wiseman said.

Here, the judge said, the undisputed facts indicate that in 1991, DPW permanently, and officially entered plaintiffs’ property and constructed a paved road. This was certified by the then governor in June 1991, in a certification for land exchange letter.

Wiseman said the proper measure of just compensation for the government’s permanent taking of private property is “the fair market value of the property at the time of taking.”

According to the undisputed facts, he said, the time of taking for the purposes of determining the “fair market value” will be 1991.

“Given that neither party in the case has disputed the amount of pre-judgment interest that should be awarded to plaintiff, and given that the factual posture of this case bears such close resemblance to Jose Camacho’s dispute, this court will award the plaintiff 3-percent interest, compounded annually, to the plaintiff’s principal award of $90 per square meter for a fee simple interest and also on the additional $348,000 severance damages,” he added.