In the unprovoked court battle Guam Waterworks Authority is waging against Core Tech International, GWA finds itself confusing two distinct property interests involving the Northern District Wastewater Treatment Plant in its latest petition before the Guam Supreme Court.
The distinction made by a trial court judge between easements GovGuam was granted by the former property owner – the U.S. government – to install sewer lines, and a lot upon which the NDWWTP sits is one GWA wants the higher court to overturn. Belying the confusion by GWA is a fact the judge has recognized: Core Tech legitimately purchased the land, where the NDWWTP sits. And just because it owns the land does not mean the NDWWTP would stop operating. In fact, the only party making such an assertion is GWA.
The court case, which began in December 2018, when the Gov. Eddie Calvo’s land management directors first sued CTI, has been about the changing of a certificate of title for the land, where the NDWWTP operates. Currently, a 2014 certificate of title reads Younex corporation owns the property in fee simple. A 2015 mortgagee’s deed, filed at the Department of Land Management, shows CTI acquired that property, and several others following a foreclosure and subsequent auction of the land. This has meant that since 2015, CTI has owned the land under which the island’s northern sewer plant operates. CTI has never disturbed the plant’s operation, nor did it bill GWA for rent prior to the filing of the 2018 lawsuit, which GWA joined in early 2019.
Grant of Easement & GWA’s error of understanding
According to Legal Match: “An easement is a legal term which refers to a right to use another individual’s real property for a specific purpose and for a specific amount of time. An easement allows one individual the legal right to travel through another individual’s property, so long as the usage is consistent with the specified easement restrictions. A landowner still retains the title to the property which is affected by the easement even though the easement grants a possessory interest in the land for a specific purpose.”
The judge went even further, though, writing, “Because the Grant of Easement does not contain ‘plain and direct language evidencing the grantor’s intent to create a right’ for use and occupancy of the Northern District Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Court does not find the government has established as a matter of law the existence of an easement.”
According to the Jimerson Birr law firm, “Sometimes disputes arise regarding the use of an easement. While an easement carries with it, by implication, the right to do what is reasonably necessary for the full enjoyment of the easement, the easement is restricted to the purposes for which it was granted. Sinclair v. Clay Elec. Co-op, Inc., 584 So. 2d 1065, 1066 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). For example, in one case, the Florida Supreme Court held that an easement for drainage could not later be used for installation of large-scale irrigation equipment. Crutchfield v. F.A. Sebring Realty Co., 69 So. 2d 328, 330 (Fla. 1954) (stating the rule that “all easements, whether acquired by user, express grant, dedication, or by implication from the circumstances of a particular transaction, that the burden of a right of way upon the servient estate must not be increased to any greater extent than reasonably necessary and contemplated at the time of initial acquisition”). Further, while the property owner whose property is subject to the easement retains the right to use the land in any manner not inconsistent with the easement, the property owner cannot unreasonably interfere with the rights of the easement holder.”
Judge Iriarte answered this point, stating in her decision and order, “As pointed out by Core Tech … the land has always and continues to be used as a sewage treatment plant for the public’s benefit. Furthermore, Core Tech does not seek to remove the plant, rather it seeks compensation for the government’s use of the land which it seeks.”
1980 General Purpose Lease & GWA’s extinguished interest
The second action the U.S. government took on May 23, 1980 was to issue GovGuam a General Purpose Lease “for the construction, installation, maintenance, operation, repair and replacement of a Wastewater Treatment Plant and sewer lines.” Based upon this lease, GWA argued, the public utility has a superior claim to Lot 10184-7 over Core Tech’s purchase of the property in 2015. Not so, Judge Iriarte said.
“The United States executed a Quitclaim Deed on July 26, 2022, which conveyed its right, title, and interest in the subject property to Gov. Guam. Upon that conveyance, the license that the United States granted GWA was extinguished. Accordingly, the Court does not find that the May 23, 1980 General Purpose Lease establishes that GWA has superior title to Core Tech. Since [GWA and GovGuam] have not established that they have a right to use and occupy the Northern District Wastewater Treatment Plant on Lot 10184-7, the Court finds that an issue of material fact remains as to whether a taking has occurred.”
Despite the clear ruling from the judge, GWA general manager Miguel Bordallo issued a news release last week telling the media a completely different story.
“The Northern District Wastewater Treatment Plant is owned by the public and has never been owned by a private party,” said Bordallo. “CTI’s assertion of any ownership to this property is wholly inaccurate.”
In its petition before the Guam Supreme Court, GWA also has distorted the facts presented and ruled upon by the trial court judge, asserting the easements and the ownership of the lot are one in the same.
This would not be the first time GWA has provided distorted information to a major party. Following Core Tech’s counterclaims (which were borne from GWA and GovGuam’s original lawsuit and GWA’s encroachment) GWA floated a bond and asserted to its creditors that it owned Lot 10184-7 without actually having title to the lot. The public utility has yet to disclose to its creditors the November 30, 2021 decision and order from Judge Iriarte, which arguably has a material effect on the future financial position of the agency.