[29ASR2d64]
CRADDICK DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
an American Samoa Corp., EDGAR C. CRADDICK, DAVID CRADDICK, ADMINISTRATORS OF
THE ESTATE OF DOUGLAS C. CRADDICK and ROBERT KERLEY, Plaintiffs
v.
MAGDALENE VAIVAO
CRADDICK and DOES 1-20, Defendants
High Court of
Trial Division
CA No. 43-89
[1] When considering
the irreparable harm criteria in an application for an injunction pending
appeal, the court needs to balance the equities.
[2] The law treats harm
to land as unique. Loss of land cannot
be replaced by like land.
[3] A security or bond
is not ordinarily required when land disputes are under appeal.
Before
Counsel: For Plaintiffs, William H. Reardon
For
Defendants, Togiola T.A. Tulafono
Injunction Pending
Appeal:
Complying with A.C.R. 8(a), plaintiffs
have first applied to the trial court for an injunction pending appeal, as
authorized under A.C.R. 8(a) and T.C.R.C.P. 62(c). The court heard counsel's arguments on
October 19 and 23, 1995, and in light of the criteria set forth in Asifoa v. Lualemana,
17 A.S.R.2d 100, 103 (App. Div. 1990), grants the application for the following
reasons.
1.
Likelihood of success on appeal.
The central issue in this action involves the meaning of
"alienation," as defined in A.S.C.A. § 37.0201(a), of individually
owned land in the context of the beneficial interests in two trust arrangements. This issue reaches constitutional proportions
and concerns the interaction with the policy restrictions protecting land with
due process and land ownership rights.
While we are confident that our decision is substantively correct, we
also recognize that the decision raises questions of law which are difficult
and not fully explored by other precedents, and about which reasonable persons
may disagree. Regardless of how we may
characterize the closeness of the questions of law, this is the very type of situation
in which in principle the status quo should be preserved through an injunction
pending appeal. Asifoa v. Lualemana, 17 A.S.R.2d 10, 14 (Trial Div. 1990); Asifoa v. Lualemana,
17 A.S.R.2d 100 at 103.
[1-2] 2. Irreparable harm. On this criteria, we
need to balance the equities. Asifoa v. Lualemana,
17 A.S.R.2d at 13.
The law treats land as unique.
Loss of land cannot be replaced by like land. As matters now stand, plaintiffs have lost
their interests in the land at issue and have suffered irreparable harm. Moreover, if defendant Magdalene Vaivao Craddick ("Magdalene") is allowed to
exercise full ownership rights over the land at this time, numerous third
persons may potentially face adverse consequences from land transactions she
may enter. Magdalene has won ownership
of the land immediately and if she prevails on appeal. An injunction pending appeal will not alter
her position in any significant way.
3.
Public interests. Public
interests are linked to this action. As
suggested above, coordination between the preservation of Samoan land customs,
on one hand, and economic development of land, on the other, will be
impacted. Also indicated, unfettered
land transactions in the interim could compound issues to be sorted out
judicially or otherwise. An injunction
pending appeal will afford protected time to duly consider [29ASR2d66] the
public policy issues and help to minimize other disputes which could
unnecessarily arise.
[3] 4. Bond.
Magdalene requests that plaintiffs post a bond if we grant the
injunction pending appeal. As discussed
in Asifoa v. Lualemana,
17 A.S.R.2d at 103, security may be appropriate when a demonstrable value from
loss of use is at stake. In this case,
however, due to insufficient evidence, we have purposely postponed assessment
of any monetary consequences of our decision pending adequate accountings of
relevant past transactions by plaintiffs Craddick Development, Inc.
("CDI"), by and through it agents, including but not limited to
plaintiff David Craddick and Magdalene In addition, security is not ordinarily
required when land disputes are under appeal.
For good cause shown, Magdalene, her
officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in
active concert or participation with her are enjoined from taking any steps to
lease, convey, reacquire possession, construct, alter or destroy improvements
or commit any waste upon, any of the land placed in the trusts at issue in this
action.
This injunction pending appeal does not
prevent Magdalene from seeking information from occupants of land for the
purpose of complying with the court's order to file her accounting of past
transactions.
Both CDI and Magdalene are presently
required to file their respective accountings within 120 days of the entry of
the judgment in this action on
It is so ordered.