[29ASR2d112]
FRANK PRITCHARD, Plaintiff
v.
ESTATE OF FUI'AVAILIILI
WILLIAM PRITCHARD, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants
High Court of
Land and Titles Division
LT No. 36-95
[1] A preliminary injunction during
the pendency of an action is appropriate when "there is a substantial
likelihood that the applicant will prevail at trial on the merits and that a
permanent injunction will be issued against the opposing party," and
"great or irreparable injury will result to the applicant before a full
and final trial can be fairly held on whether a permanent injunction should
issue." A.S.C.A.
§ 43.1301(j).
[2] If a party does not meet the burden of
showing irreparable harm before trial when applying for a preliminary
injunction, a court need not consider the issue of likelihood of success on the
merits at trial.
Before
Counsel: For
Plaintiff, Tuana`itau F. Tuia, L.P.
For
Defendant, Charles V. Ala`ilima
Order Denying Application for Preliminary Injunction
and Consolidating Two Actions:
This action concerns a portion of land named
"Fuamete" in the
The present application before the court is for a
preliminary injunction to enjoin the estate and the decedent's heirs from
alienating the land or constructing improvements on the land during the
pendency of this action. The court
regularly heard the application on
Discussion
[1] A preliminary injunction
during the pendency of an action is appropriate when "there is a
substantial likelihood that the applicant will prevail at trial on the merits
and that a permanent injunction will be issued against the opposing
party," and "great or irreparable injury will result to the applicant
before a full and final trial can be fairly held on whether a permanent
injunction should issue." A.S.C.A. § 43.1301(j).
Frank is not at risk of suffering great or
irreparable injury while this action is pending. A companion case, Estate of Fuiavailiili
William Pritchard v. Frank Pritchard, et al., LT No. 27-95, is also
ongoing. In that case, the estate seeks
to quiet title to the land in the name of the estate and title to another
nearby portion of Fuamete in the names of the estate and Frank. Probate of the estate, PR No. 22-94, is
likewise under way, and the land is listed in the inventory. The estate's initiative in LT No. 27-95 to
quiet title to the land, coupled with the probate proceedings in PR No. 22-94,
provide a sufficiently formidable legal barrier to prevent either the estate or
the decedent's heirs, and Frank as well, from attempting to alienate or to
construct improvements on the land, or for that matter to encumber the land,
until the title issue is resolved. We
can bolster that barrier by consolidating this action with LT No. 27-95,
pursuant to T.C.R.C.P. Rule 42(a).
[2] Since Frank has not met his
burden of showing irreparable harm before trial, and his interests are
adequately protected at this stage of this action, we need not presently
consider the issue of likelihood of success on the merits at trial.
We will also note that since a preliminary
injunction is not necessary, Frank will not have to be presently concerned with
providing an undertaking required under A.S.C.A. § 43.1309(a) to protect any
damages that might be awarded to the estate, should the estate ultimately
prevail in this action.[29ASR2d114]
Lastly, since the land actions are essentially for
equitable relief, and if the family members are unable to resolve their
internal controversies, counsel are urged to bring
these matters to trial at the earliest possible date. See A.S.C.A. § 43.1103.
Order
1. The
application for a preliminary injunction is denied.
2. This
action and LT No. 27-95 are consolidated.
It
is so ordered.