THE Estate of Manuel Villagomez and its administrator Colleen V. Manglona, through attorney Robert T. Torres, are objecting to the status report filed by the NMI Settlement Fund.
The dispute stems from the NMISF’s claim against the estate, which it said is based on an overpayment in retirement benefits amounting to over $56,000 paid prior to Villagomez’ passing on May 10, 2021.
The NMISF said it is a creditor of the estate, and it timely filed a Notice of Claim in the Probate Action (Superior Court) on Nov. 1, 2021.
In a status report filed in federal court on Wednesday regarding the parties’ settlement discussion, Torres stated that their joint status report filed in Superior Court simply reported that the parties had continued discussions and needed additional time.
But Torres said the NMI Settlement Fund trustee, who is represented by attorney Nicole Torres-Ripple, “has seen it necessary to assert a contrasting filing before this court which the [estate] Administratrix finds disturbing and offensive.”
In her filing on March 8, 2022, the NMISF trustee disclosed, in violation of Rule 408 Fed. R. Evid., a condition of settlement/resolution, which was under discussion, Torres said.
He said that the trustee “baldly asserts her ‘position’ or condition that ‘a settlement cannot be finalized until the Court issues its written decision.’”
The trustee reasons that the decision will likely arise again and will have an “important precedential value,” Torres said.
He added that “those statements by the Trustee in her filing simply inform the Court of her condition of settlement.”
“This court has already informed the parties that it was willing, to encourage resolution, to withhold ruling in order to facilitate resolution,” Torres said.
“The Trustee has turned this around to her opportunity to curry advantage with this court and signal a condition so that the court would support her and inform all other retiree beneficiaries with similar disputes (approximately 132 if the prior statement is to be believed) of the uphill battle they must reckon with in disputing this process.”
That is not fair play, Torres added.
“The Administratrix respectfully requests that this court disregard the Trustee’s efforts to use a status report to intimidate the Administratrix by enlisting the court’s familiarity with her in many proceedings without input or scrutiny as to the experience of frustrated retirees such as decedent Mr. Villagomez and his experience with the NMI Settlement Fund and its predecessor the NMI Retirement Fund,” Torres said.
He said the “Administratrix informs the court what it requested and required, a status report.”
“The parties did that before the Superior Court without difficulty,” he added. “But here the Trustee seeks advantage and opportunity to prime the pump of precedential value to deter any retirees who would dare assert their due process rights.”
“One thing the Administratrix agrees with,” Torres said, “and which this court observed in passing, is that if settlement fails, this case may be one of first impression and requires full litigation for precedential value.”
“That may not be a bad thing for the NMI Retirees dealing with the NMI Settlement Fund Trustee who believes her reportable only to the court,” Torres said.
“But the task is to pursue resolution not assert ‘positions’ in status reports intended to muzzle or collar the other party when trying to settle a dispute,” he said.
Torres said his client “objects to the Trustee’s self-serving and objectionable version of a status report.”
