Police official sued by sister for allegedly refusing to lease land

The commander of the Department of Public Safety’s Commonwealth Investigation Bureau and his sister are being sued by their other sister for allegedly refusing to lease their piece of land in Oleai to Triple J. Saipan Inc.

Francella Kimberly Fitial Olopai is asking the Superior Court to hold that she has an undeniable right to the partition of their property.

Francella Olopai is suing CBI commander Jeffrey Benigno Fitial Olopai and Immaculada Conzaga Melita Fitial Olopai.

The plaintiff also demanded payment for attorney’s fees and court costs.

Saipan Tribune tried but failed to get comment yesterday from Jeffrey Olopai.

Attorney James R. Stump is counsel for Francella Olopai.

Saipan Tribune learned that Stump is currently a corporate counsel for Triple J. Saipan Inc.

According to Stump in the complaint, on March 27, 1990, a decree of final distribution proceeding associated with the estate of Dominina Olopai provided defendants and plaintiff Francella Olopai with “equal undivided interests” in lot 2011 located in Oleai.

There are two houses located on the lot with Francella Olopai sharing one structure with Immaculada Olopai, and Jeffrey Olopai using the other structure to provide housing for his uncle.

Stump said that, in April 2014, Francella Olopai and defendants all agreed to lease the property to Triple J and that documents were prepared reflecting this agreement.

Under the terms of the lease agreement, Stump said, each cotenant would be paid an initial monthly rent of $1,005.66 per month with 10 percent increases every five years throughout the total lease period of 55 years.

Cotenant refers to one who holds an interest in real property together with one or more others.

Stump said that, on May 7, 2014 when Francella Olopai and the defendants were scheduled to sign the lease agreement, Jeffrey Olopai changed his mind on the day scheduled for signing.

The parties, the lawyer said, are in continued disagreement over use of the property with the plaintiff seeking to lease the property and the defendants seeking to retain its current possessory status.

In order to resolve the dispute between the parties as to use of the property, the defendants were requested to agree to an administrative partition and was presented a proposal for partition into three parts equal in size.

However, Stump said, the defendants refused to agree to this proposed administrative partition.

Stump said Francella Olopai has attempted to use the simple Commonwealth administrative process for obtaining division of property, but defendants have refused to agree to an administrative partition.

“The defendants’ actions are directly affecting the plaintiff’s right to use her property interest as she see fit,” Stump said.

Because of the non-cooperation, Stump added, plaintiff is required to seek a remedy through the use of court proceedings to request a partition of the property.