CUBA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Martin Domb, Pedro A Freyre, Augusto E Maxwell and Christopher Carver, Akerman LLP
Conclusion As we go to press with this update, the authors and other interested persons await further devel- opments in the Havana Docks and Exxon cases, and in the trial in Echevarria against Expedia.
he presented, however, failed in two respects, each of which was sufficient to doom his claim. First, the Act excludes “property used for resi- dential purposes” from the definition of “prop- erty” as to which a trafficking claim can be made, with two exceptions: if, as of 12 March 1996, (i) the claim had been certified by the Fed- eral Claims Settlement Commission or (ii) “the property was occupied by a Cuban government official or its ruling political party”. It was estab- lished that the property was used as a residence and that Trinidad’s claim was not certified; Trini- dad tried but was unable to prove that a govern- ment official or its political party had occupied the residence. Thus, neither exception applied. Second, Trinidad could not prove that the hotels actually sat on the property his parents had owned. According to a certificate from the Cuban property registry, as well as a hand-drawn map that Judge Moreno ruled was inadmissible hearsay, both submitted by Trinidad, the hotels in question were located on a different stretch of road than the Trinidad property. Thus, there was no trafficking regarding the Trinidad prop- erty. Having found these two deficiencies, each sufficient to dismiss the case, the court did not consider other possible grounds for dismissal. Trinidad has filed a notice of appeal from this decision.
320 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook