Previous Story
Quichocho, landowner settle investor’s lawsuit
|
Posted on Sep 05 2011
Attorney Ramon K. Quichocho and landowner Joaquin Q. Atalig have settled the lawsuit filed by investor Sin Ho Nam, who obtained Thursday a favorable ruling from the federal court.
Attorney Michael Dotts, counsel for Quichocho and Atalig, told Saipan Tribune that the case was settled on Friday by District Court Judge Alex Munson, who is on island.
“The decision actually did not make much of a difference,” said Dotts, referring to a 55-page opinion and order issued by U.S. District Court for the NMI visiting judge Mark W. Bennett.
When asked for comment about Bennett’s ruling, Dotts said that part of the decision favored Nam and part favored Quichocho.
Dotts did not discuss the terms of the settlement.
Attorney Colin Thompson, counsel for Nam, did not immediately respond to Saipan Tribune’s request for comment about the settlement.
Nam had sued Quichocho and Atalig for breaching a land lease agreement when they terminated a 55-year lease, less than two years later despite having already paid the full lease amount of $218,000.
Bennett found Quichocho and Atalig liable to Nam for breach of contract.
Bennett said that Nam’s remedies or question of damages and the entirety of his claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Quichocho will proceed to trial.
On the breach claim, the judge said the requirement to show that Nam has stopped paying rent to demonstrate abandonment is missing, since it is undisputed that Nam prepaid the rent for the entirety of the 55-year lease term.
The judge noted that Quichocho and Atalig showed no proof demonstrating that Nam had “vacated” the leased property or that he had no intention of returning.
Indeed, Bennett said, the defendants’ utter lack of support for their “abandonment” claim suggests that this ground for asserting that Nam had defaulted under the ground lease and that the lease was, therefore, subject to termination, was in bad faith.
Bennett said the defendants’ assertion that Nam defaulted by failing to obtain fire insurance is equally insufficient.
