VZCZCXYZ0001
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHMU #0921 2651341
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 221341Z SEP 09
FM AMEMBASSY MANAGUA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4578
INFO RUEHZA/WHA CENTRAL AMERICAN COLLECTIVE
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS MANAGUA 000921 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR WHA/CEN, EB/IFD/OIA, AND L/CID 
STATE ALSO FOR WHA/EPSC 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON EINV NU
SUBJECT: NICARAGUA: GON CONFISCATES U.S. CITIZEN PROPERTY 
 
REFS: A) MANAGUA 537, B) 08 MANAGUA 1546, C) MANAGUA 902 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) In March 2009, U.S. citizen Lidia Mayorga received 
information that the Government of Nicaragua (GON) had confiscated 
her property and offered her indemnification bonds (BPIs) as 
compensation.  The Attorney General's Office claims that the law 
allows the GON to settle her case -- even though it is a dispute 
between private parties -- because her property had been transferred 
legally to the occupant.  Mrs. Mayorga will not accept the 
government's settlement offer and is concerned that the GON will not 
afford her due proces.  The GON's handling of this case is yet 
another example of GON efforts to compel U.S. claimants to accept 
compensation without negotiation, and use any legal mechanism at its 
disposal to defend its action.  It also illustrates another 
troubling trend, the involvement of the Attorney General's Office in 
private property disputes. 
 
GON CONFSICATES U.S. CITIZEN PROPERTY 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) In March 2009, the Attorney General's Office notified U.S. 
citizen Lydia Mayorga that her property had been confiscated and she 
would receive BPIs worth 395,000 cordobas, approximately $19,242, as 
compensation (Ref A).  Mrs. Mayorga owns an 18,244 square foot 
property in an upscale neighborhood of Managua.  She bought the 
property in March 1992, but a religious organization claims to have 
occupied it since 1979.  Representatives of the Monsignor Oscar 
Arnulfo Romero Spiritual Center (CEMOAR) also assert that the 
Nicaraguan Real Estate Corporation (CONIBIR) sold CEMOAR the 
property in 1982 and that the Nicaraguan Housing Agency (BAVINIC) 
issued it a title in 1993.  Between 1995 and 2002, Mrs. Mayorga 
negotiated with CEMOAR to settle the property dispute, but they 
never reached an agreement.  During that period, Mrs. Mayorga did 
not file a property claim with the government because this was a 
private dispute and her land had not been confiscated by the first 
Sandinista government of the 1980s. 
 
¶3. (SBU) In April, Emboff raised Mrs. Mayorga's case with GON 
officials.  On May 5, the Attorney General's Office informed the 
Embassy that Mrs. Mayorga's case had been resolved according to Law 
278 (1997).  GON officials explained that the law allows the 
government to offer compensation to property owners whose land and 
homes were transferred to beneficiaries of Laws 85 (1990) and 86 
(1990), also known as the Pinata Laws (Ref B).  There is no 
evidence, however, that CEMOAR was a beneficiary under the Pinata 
laws.  [Note: These laws were passed on the eve of the departure of 
the first Sandinista government to provide titles to supporters who 
occupied property illegally.  End note.]  On July 9, the Ambassador 
wrote Attorney General Hernan Estrada to seek clarification 
regarding his role in the property dispute given that it was a 
private matter and Mrs. Mayorga's land had not been previously 
confiscated by the government. 
 
CLAIMANT INTENDS TO KEEP FIGHTING 
--------------------------------- 

¶4. (SBU) On August 21, Mrs. Mayorga's legal representative told us 
that she will not accept the government's settlement offer. 
Although she would like to recover her property, she is willing to 
accept fair compensation for the loss of her land.  Mrs. Mayorga 
intends to pursue a resolution of her case with the government or in 
court, but she is concerned that the GON will not afford her due 
process. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 

¶5. (SBU) The GON's confiscation of U.S. citizen property without 
affording due process is a step backward in our efforts to work with 
the government to resolve claims and land disputes.  This case is 
yet another example of the GON's efforts to compel U.S. claimants to 
accept compensation without negotiation, and use any legal mechanism 
at its disposal to defend its action (Ref C).  It also illustrates 
another troubling trend, the involvement of the Attorney General's 
Office in private property disputes. 
 
CALLAHAN