Sablan v. CUC

Summary

The CNMI Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court judgment in an inverse condemnation case. The court held that inverse condemnation claims are subject to statutes of limitations but that Conrad Sablan's claim accrued in 2013 when a survey revealed the government's encroachment, making his 2015 complaint timely. The court affirmed that CUC could be liable despite lacking eminent domain authority, that no taking of a separate parcel occurred, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in bifurcating the trial, and that the Moody's Aaa rate was appropriate for prejudgment interest. The court reversed on two issues: it held that Conrad alone is entitled to compensation based on the deeds transferring all rights, and that the trial court should have used the before-and-after valuation method for the partial taking rather than valuing a later-subdivided parcel. The compensation award was vacated and remanded for recalculation.