SUPERIOR Court Associate Judge Teresa Kim-Tenorio has granted in part and denied in part Chong International Corporation’s partial summary judgment motion against Daniel Durkin.
CIC, represented by attorney Charity Hodson, sought a summary judgment on its eviction action against Durkin, who is represented by attorney Cong Nie, and his counterclaim for retaliatory eviction.
Also appearing in court at a hearing on Tuesday, Jan. 21, were CIC’s authorized representative, Gab Du Chong, and court-certified interpreter, Seong Bin Lee.
In an eight-page order issued on Thursday, Jan. 23, Judge Kim-Tenorio denied CIC’s motion for summary judgment on its summary eviction action.
But she granted CIC’s motion for summary judgment on the defendant’s counterclaim of retaliatory eviction. “The Court does not recognize an affirmative cause of action for retaliatory eviction,” the judge said.
A bench trial has been scheduled for Jan. 27 at 1 p.m.
Background
CIC filed a “Complaint for Summary Removal under the Holdover Tenancy Act” against Daniel Durkin on Aug. 10, 2024, for his “refusal to vacate CIC’s apartment unit after the lease expired and CIC elected not to renew it.”
CIC argued that summary judgment is “proper” for this case because there was “no genuine issue of material fact.”
Durkin opposed CIC’s complaint.
Rental agreement
CIC and Durkin executed a rental agreement on Oct. 18, 2022 for Apartment 303 at plaintiff’s apartment complex on Lot No. H-223-2 in Dandan.
The lease began on Dec. 1, 2022, and ended on November 30, 2023.
Durkin receives housing assistance through the Northern Marianas Housing Corporation’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.
To receive this assistance as rental payments, CIC executed a Housing Assistance Payments Contract or HAPC with NMHC on Dec. 1, 2022.
The parties’ rental agreement did not require good cause to terminate an at-will tenancy.
But the HAPC’s Tenancy Addendum provided that terminating at-will tenancy after the end of the initial lease required good cause, including a “business or economic reason…such as…renovation of the unit.”
Durkin remained in possession of the rental premises after the parties’ lease expired on Nov. 30, 2023.
This created a month-to-month tenancy at-will pursuant to the rental agreement and the HAPC.
Sometime in early 2024, Durkin began to report to the Saipan Mayor’s Office that trash, including broken shipping containers and abandoned vehicles had accumulated behind the plaintiff’s apartment complex on land controlled by the plaintiff.
Saipan mayor’s staff arrived at the plaintiff’s apartment complex to address the trash soon after the defendant’s report. Unable to remove the shipping containers, the mayor’s staff reported the area’s condition to the Saipan Zoning Office.
The Zoning Office conducted an inspection on April 9, 2024, and issued the plaintiff a “Notice of Violation” on April 26, 2024.
The Zoning Office also issued the plaintiff a $1,000 fine and required that the plaintiff “correct the public nuisance.”
On May 28, 2024, CIC removed the broken shipping containers.
On June 3, 2024, the plaintiff served the defendant with a written notice to vacate, stating: “[CIC] is writing this formal letter to kindly request [Durkin] to please vacate the premises within the next 30 days because we will be renovating the 3rd floor.”
Durkin refused to vacate the premises and on Aug. 2, 2024, he issued a Demand to Rescind Notice to Vacate Premises.
On Aug. 10, 2024, the plaintiff filed its Complaint for Summary Removal Under the Holdover Tenancy Act.
On Aug. 19, 2024, the defendant filed his answer and counterclaim alleging that the plaintiff had used third-floor renovations as a pretense to evict him in retaliation for his complaints to the mayor’s office and Zoning Office.
In Durkin’s reply to the motion for summary judgment, he argued that the court should recognize both a defense and a cause of action for retaliatory eviction.
Under retaliatory eviction, the “Plaintiff’s motive for evicting Defendant would be an issue of material fact,” Durkin said.
In its reply, CIC stated that “retaliatory eviction is not an applicable defense or cause of action in the CNMI.”
CIC said it is also “entitled to money damages, including double rent, costs and attorney’s fees…but reserves final calculation of such amounts until the Court rules on Durkin’s counterclaim.”
