Quichocho, landowner found liable for breach of land lease

The federal court yesterday issued a ruling favorable to an investor who sued lawyer Ramon K. Quichocho and landowner Joaquin Q. Atalig for breaching a land lease agreement when they terminated a 55-year lease less than two years later despite having already paid $218,000.

In a 55-page opinion and order, U.S. District Court for the NMI visiting judge Mark W. Bennett found Quichocho and Atalig liable to Sin Ho 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.

While contract law does not contain a “smell test,” Bennett said the facts of this exotic island real estate contract dispute between a Saipan lawyer lessor and a Korean businessman lessee “reek with the pungency of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead [red-grilled emperor] fish.”

“I find that the odor here is so profound that no reasonable jury could be in doubt about the outcome on many of the claims and counterclaims asserted, so that summary judgment is warranted on those claims,” the judge pointed out.

The judge also denied the motion of Quichocho and Atalig to strike the declaration of attorney Stephen Nutting.

Nam offered Nutting’s declaration to support his motion for summary judgment. That declaration alleged similar conduct of Quichocho and Atalig relating to other properties.

Bennett said the defendants are not seeking to strike matter from a pleading, but, instead, are attempting to strike a declaration offered in support of Nam’s motion for summary judgment.

“As a result, the defendants’ motion to strike is improper under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and, consequently, is denied,” the judge said.

Attorney Colin Thompson is counsel for Nam. Attorney Michael Dotts is counsel for the defendants.

On the breach claim, Bennett 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.

Moreover, the judge noted, Quichocho and Atalig showed no proof demonstrating that Nam had “vacated” the leased property or that he had no present intention of returning.

Bennett said the ground lease did not require Nam to occupy, improve, build on, or do anything with the premises during his tenancy.

“It simply permitted him to “use, improve, and develop the premises or any part thereof for any lawful use or purpose, provided that lessee shall not commit waste,” the judge said.