CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT
TRIAL DIVISION
Cite case as Ueda v Stephen, 9 FSM Intrm 195 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1999)

CHURIKAR UEDA et al.,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

FOUSTINO STEPHEN et al.,
Defendants.

___________________________________

CSSC CIVIL ACTION NO. 161-93

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Wanis R. Simina
Associate Justice

Decided: August 12, 1999

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiffs:
Ben K. Enlet, trial counselor
P.O. Box 123
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

For the Defendants:
Stephen V. Finnen, Esq.
Law Offices of Saimon & Associates
P.O. Box 1450
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Contracts
Lessors are entitled to the unpaid rent from time lessees stopped paying rent until the time lessors terminated the lease, pursuant to the lease's terms, for lessees' failure to pay rent. Ueda v. Stephen, 9 FSM Intrm. 195, 196 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1999).

Civil Procedure - Affidavits; Civil Procedure - Summary Judgment
In summary judgment motion, supporting and opposing affidavits must be made on personal knowledge, set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. An adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but must respond by affidavits setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Ueda v. Stephen, 9 FSM Intrm. 195, 197 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1999).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

WANIS R. SIMINA, Associate Justice:

This case comes before the Court after notice and hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that there are no genuine issues of a material fact in the case and that the Defendants' are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on the issues raised by Plaintiffs' Complaint and the issues raised by Defendants' Counter-claim. The Court agrees.

The Defendants' Motion, supporting affidavits and the record in this case offer compelling reasons for dismissing the Plaintiffs' Complaint with Prejudice and entering judgment in favor of Defendants' on their Counter-claim in the amount of $5,090.00 for unpaid rent required by the terms of the lease.

The dispute arises out of a lease entered into by Plaintiffs as lessee and Defendants as lessors. The lease, properly authenticated and made a part of the record in the case, was entered into on February 4, 1986; was for a term of 25 years; required rental payment of $1,800.00 per annum and described the leased premises as being commonly known as Nemanong #1, located in Nepukos, Weno, Chuuk State.

It is not disputed that rental payments of the amount required by the lease were made from the inception of the lease until October 30, 1989, a total of $8,410.00. It is also undisputed that no rental payments were made by Plaintiffs during a period of approximately 3 years and 6 months, from October 30, 1989 to March 18, 1993, the date upon which Defendants gave notice to Plaintiffs that the lease was being terminated, pursuant to the terms of the lease, for the failure of Defendants to pay the rent provided for by the lease. These facts alone warrant the entry of a Summary Judgment in Defendants' favor as requested.

The Plaintiffs defend against the foregoing facts by asserting the doctrines of laches and estoppel. However, Plaintiffs have offered no lawful or admissible evidence to support their position as required by Rule 56(e) CSSC Rules of Civil Procedure, which states in part as follows:

Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. . . . [A]n adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.

Viewed in its entirety, the record in this case reveals but a simple denial by Plaintiffs that the lease had been breached. Without more, the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof and the Motion of Defendants for Summary Judgment is due to be granted, and it is so ordered.

Further ordered, that the Plaintiffs' Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice, and further ordered, that Judgment in the amount of $5,090.00 be entered against the Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendants on their Counter-claim.