DLNR was ordered to pay the amount it owes to the plaintiffs on April 1, 2009, but it asked the court for a stay of a portion in the court order until after the hearing set for April 9, 2009.
But the court said although the defendant filed their motion to stay on some portions of the third order set for April 9, they filed their motion to stay only on the afternoon of April 1, the day that the $20,000 payment it owed to the plaintiff was due.
“Astonishingly, DLNR waited for the due date of the payment to make their request,” Wiseman said.
In the court’s third order, DLNR was ordered to abide by the first two orders in aid of judgment the court previously issued.
Wiseman said the third order stated that the $20,000 ordered paid to the plaintiffs on May 10, 2005 will be paid to their counsel on or before April 1, 2009 with an accumulated interest at the rate of 9 percent from May 10, 2005 up to the time of payment.
The court denied DLNR’s motion on the grounds that “the appropriate action would have been to file a motion to stay after the first or the second orders were issued.”
The court said DLNR blatantly ignored the first two orders and only after the deadline passed did they wish to further postpone the mandates of the court.
Wiseman said the third order was a continuation of the mandates which have been in place for over four years.
The judge added that as stated in the court’s third order, in the event that it is not complied with, the plaintiffs are authorized to seek further relief including an order garnishing federal funds, appropriating portions of DLNR’s budget and obtaining a finding of contempt from the court.
Last February, the court authorized the plaintiffs to seek relief, including garnishing of federal funds, if the defendant fails to comply with the court orders to pay over $5.9 million it owes to them.
The court issued the two orders on May 10, 2005 and on May 21, 2008, but noted that DLNR failed to comply with both orders in all respects.
DLNR must also pay all income biweekly received from its operations at the marina at the Outer Cove in Saipan, including boat slip rental fees to cover the plaintiffs’ costs on executing the judgment, and report to the court by April 30, 2009 on what efforts they have made to get appropriation of funds by the Legislature to pay the judgment.
DLNR and the plaintiff signed the Marine Revitalization Corp. Submerged Lands Lease Act of 1995 on Aug. 24, 1995.
The agreement included the construction of the new outer cove by the plaintiffs and DLNR agreed that all commercial boats would be required to use the new marina and the usage fees would belong to MRC.
The court said the defendant made no payments on the stipulated judgment and has not made any offer to make payments.
