Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Chuuk State Court

Mark v Chuuk [1998] FMCSC 21; 8 FSM Intrm. 582 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998) (3 September 1998)

CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT
TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as Mark v Chuuk, [1998] FMCSC 21; 8 FSM Intrm. 582 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998)

BEN MARK,
Plaintiff,

vs.

CHUUK STATE GOVERNMENT,
Defendant

CSSC CIVIL ACTION NO. 124-98

JUDGMENT

Soukichi Fritz
Chief Justice

Hearing: September 1, 1998
Decided: September 3, 1998

APPEARANCE:

For the Plaintiff:
Ben K. Enlet, trial counselor
P.O. Box 123
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Administrative Law - Judicial Review
When a plaintiff seeks to establish a claim in a court action that is identical to the claim he already established in administrative proceedings, a court judgment could do no more, and payment of the claim can only be lawfully done by legislative appropriation. Mark v. Chuuk, [1998] FMCSC 21; 8 FSM Intrm. 582, 583 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

Administrative Law
In some circumstances, two remedies may be available to the same party for the enforcement of the same right, one in the judicial and the other in the administrative forum. Mark v. Chuuk, [1998] FMCSC 21; 8 FSM Intrm. 582, 583 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

Administrative Law
In administrative law in regard to controversies in which the same parties and the same subject matter are involved, when two or more tribunals have concurrent jurisdiction, the tribunal first assuming jurisdiction retains it to the exclusion of all other tribunals in which the proceeding might have been initiated. Mark v. Chuuk, [1998] FMCSC 21; 8 FSM Intrm. 582, 583-84 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

Administrative Law - Judicial Review
The Chuuk State Supreme Court trial division has jurisdiction to review the actions of any state administrative agency, board, or commission, as may be provided by law. The Judiciary Act of 1990, Chk. 190-08, § 18, provides that son adveradversely affected or aggrieved by an agency action, is entitled to judicial review thereof. Mark v. Chuuk, [1998] FMCSC 21; 8 FSM Intrm. 582, 584 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

Admiative Law - Judicial Revieweview
A person who has not been adversely affected or aggrieved by administrative action cannot seek court review when his rights were fully protected by his successful administrative claim. His remedy is not with the judiciary, but with the Legislature for an appropriation to pay his claim. Mark v. Chuuk, [1998] FMCSC 21; 8 FSM Intrm. 582, 584 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

SOUKICHI FRITZ, Chief Justice:

This case comes before the Court for judgment after notice and hearing held on September 1, 1998. The Plaintiff was represented by Ben K. Enlet. No appearance was made on behalf of the Defendant, Chuuk State Government.

The Complaint alleges that State employees were negligent in the construction of a public road causing damage to Plaintiff's taro patch and water well. The Plaintiff offered into evidence, various documentation tending to show that agencies of the Defendant had made assessments of the damage to Plaintiff's property and concluded that damages totaling $35,700.00 had in fact been caused by the negligence of Defendant's agents.

The evidence further shows that Plaintiff's claim for $35,700.00 was approved and presented for payment to the proper agents of Defendant, but Plaintiff was advised that no appropriation had been made by the Legislature for payment of the claim.

This is a case of first impression in that the claim which Plaintiff seeks to establish in the case before the Court, is identical to that which has already been established through administrative proceedings before the Chuuk State Department of Commerce and Industry, Division of Land Management and the Department of Agriculture. These Administrative Agencies verified the Plaintiff's claim and the amount thereof. A Judgment of this Court could do no more.

The payment of the claim established by Administrative Procedure or by Court Judgment can only be lawfully done by an appropriation by the legislature of the funds for such payment.

It is true that Plaintiff may have had a choice of where to submit his claim for damages. In 2 Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 784 (1962) it id: "In some some circumstances, two remedies may be available to the same party for the enforcement of the same right, one in tdicial and the other in the administrative forum . . .&#160p> Andp>And innd innd in 2 Am. Jur . 2d Administrative Law § 786 (1962) the rule statet:that: "In regard to controversies in which the same parties and the same subject matre ind, when two or moor more trre tribunals have concurrent jurisdiction, the tribunal first assuming jurisdiction retains it to the exclusion of all other tribunals in which the proceeding might have been initiated."