Previous Story
Supreme Court denies CDA’s petition
The Supreme Court denied the Commonwealth Development Authority’s petition for a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition last May 4.
CDA’s petition arose from the trial court proceedings in Commonwealth Dev. Auth. v. Estate of Rasa, Civ. No. 03-0609 (NMI Super. Ct.).
There, the trial court denied CDA’s application for confirmation of a certificate of sale on a foreclosed property because it found the sale price of the property inadequate. The trial court then scheduled a hearing to determine a minimum foreclosure sale price for the foreclosed property. CDA petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate the order scheduling that hearing and for a writ of prohibition preventing the trial court from holding similar hearings in other cases.
In its petition, CDA asserted that the trial court erred by applying the Restatement of Law because Commonwealth written law is dispositive. The Supreme Court held that Commonwealth statutes and case law do not address the issue; therefore, it found that the trial court’s application of the Restatement of Law was not error.
CDA also argued the court erred because the Restatement supports confirmation of the sale, and United States common law neither supports sua sponte review of an application for confirmation nor the scheduling of a minimum foreclosure price hearing. The court stated that the trial court did not err because there was a rational and substantial legal argument supporting the trial court’s sua sponte denial of CDA’s application. Further, it stated CDA’s argument as to the hearing was unpersuasive because CDA did not show that the scheduling of the hearing was contrary to United States common law.
The court’s full opinion is available at http://www.cnmilaw.org/supreme15.html.
