Gov’t told to pay Hillblom claimant’s guardian

The U.S. District Court on Friday ordered the CNMI government to pay over $13,000 to a lawyer, who is a guardian to one of the Hillblom claimants, representing attorney fees and costs in a case that the former lost last June.

James E. Hollman, in his capacity as guardian for Vo Minh Tan, sued the government over a recent law that had allowed the CNMI to keep the interests earned from the funds belonging to the estate of the late business tycoon Larry Hillblom entrusted to the Superior Court.

The lawsuit was filed in April by lawyer Bruce L. Jorgensen on behalf of his client after Superior Court Judge Pro-Tem Alex Castro ordered Mr. Hollman to defend claim on the interests earned from the Hillblom account.

The plaintiff had asked payment of all interests accrued on some $833,334 deposited by the judiciary which had been deprived on his Vietnamese ward because of PL 11-105 which was signed by the governor in October 1999.

In his ruling last June, District Judge Alex R. Munson said Section 3 of that law was unconstitutional as it meant taking of private property for public use with the intention of making more money out of it.

While the court had given the CNMI time to repeal such provision before issuing the ruling, the Senate failed to act on a bill that the House had passed in order to avoid penalty by the court.

Attorney General Herb D. Soll even sought the immediate repeal because of the potential cost to the government, which he estimated to be at least $5,000 in attorney fees.

Last month, Mr. Hollman asked the court for an award amounting to $6,640 for 33.2 hours of legal services provided by Mr. Jorgensen at a rate of $200 per hour, according to court documents.

The CNMI’s inaction on PL 1-105, however, carried weight in the judge’s decision to double such award to $13,280 plus reimbursement of $150 paid in filing fee.

Judge Munson cited as bases for such ruling to novelty of the issues, amounts involved and the results obtained as well as the undesirability of the case.

“The interest which had been generated by the hundreds of millions of dollars involved in the probate was substantial and plaintiff succeeded not only in getting the interest due his ward, but also the interest due to others involved in the probate,” the judge said in last Friday’s ruling.

“[B]y successfully having the law struck down, plaintiff had assured that no persons in the future would be subjected to the diminution of their property,” he added.