Previous Story
Rota Resort owner’s appeal vs lease termination still pending
The appeal of the owner of Rota Resort and Country Club against the decision of the Department of Public Lands to terminate its 1989 lease agreement remains pending before DPL’s administrative hearing officer.
In response to Saipan Tribune’s inquiry, DPL Secretary Teresita A. Santos said Tuesday that the status quo remains, which means the issue has yet to be resolved.
“As we speak, DPL surveyors are on Rota to conduct As Built Surveys on the premise to determine whether the public and private lands are situated on the same,” Santos said.
As-Built Surveys refers to formal documentation of exactly how a project was built during construction.
The owner of Rota Resort filed the appeal with DPL’s administrative hearing officer Ramon S. Dela Cruz after DPL issued a notice of violation to the resort owner and terminated the lease.
When asked for comments, Colin Murphy Thompson, who is counsel for Hee Kyun Cho of the Rota Resort LLC, which owns the resort, told Saipan Tribune in an email Tuesday that the parties in the case are working on a set of stipulated facts pursuant to the hearing officer’s last order.
“I will let you know as the case develops,” said Thompson when asked what Rota Resort’s arguments are in appealing the DPL’s decision.
Last March 8, the DPL secretary sent a notice of termination and violation to Cho for alleged abandonment of the premises and non-payment of $639,879 in lease and interest fees.
Santos gave Cho 30 days from the receipt of the notice of termination to remit the full payment of $639,879, which according to her, the company owes DPL in lease and interest fees from July 1, 2020 to Feb. 28, 2023.
Santos stated in the notice that DPL inspected the Rota Resort property on Nov. 2, 2022, and found that the premises, including the golf course and hotel buildings, were in disrepair, blocked for access with chains and padlocks, and not open for business as of that date.
She said that DPL’s follow-up inspection on Feb. 6, 2023, found that the premises had not reopened for business since the previous inspection.
