Besides MRC’s lost investment that could have been helping CNMI tourism today, “the marina is slowly going back into the ocean, and won’t be there in the next three years,” said Pellegrino.
In a telephone interview yesterday, Pellegrino said he was willing to sit down with the Legislature and discuss an acceptable payment scheme but the government refused to pay.
He also noted that both the administration and the Legislature have admitted that the government owes him money.
The Superior Court in its 2005 ruling said the government should pay MRC $3.5 million for the construction of Outer Cove Marina in 1995 and interest for a grand total of $5.9 million.
According to the justices, however, the government is not liable for post-judgment interest unless it explicitly consents to such interest in a contract or through a statute.
The contract between MRC and DLNR did not provide for post-judgment interest, and there was no statute that made the government liable for interest on this judgment, the high court stated.
“As a result, the Superior Court erroneously awarded interest, which the Supreme Court properly corrected on appeal,” the high court ruling stated.
The Supreme Court stated that “the award of assignable tax credit to MRC to satisfy the judgment was in error; no part of [the Department of Land and Natural Resources] budget of the income it derives from its operation of the Outer Cove Marina can be used to satisfy the judgment; federal funds cannot be garnished to satisfy the judgment; and post-judgment interest does not accumulate against the government.”
In a statement, the Office of the Governor said because of the high court’s ruling, the government “will be spared from having to potentially spend millions of dollars in interest on past civil judgments.”
Attorney General Edward Buckingham, in the same statement, said: “We are pleased with the outcome and appreciate the work of Assistant AG’s Gil Birnbrich and David Lochabay.”
Buckingham added, “These are hard times and we seek to save taxpayer money whenever we can.”
Pellegrino, who was represented by attorney Michael Dotts, described the Supreme Court’s decision as “really unfair.”
But he said it’s not over yet. He’s planning to take another action, which he declined to reveal.
