[30ASR2d22]
In re: a Minor Child
High Court of
Trial Division
JR No. 141-95
[1] A party
must cite the court to specific allegations of error, accompanied by legal
citation where appropriate, or a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall
be denied. In extreme instances, we may
even treat the motion as a nullity, cutting off the party's right to further
appeal.
[2] In making
a motion for new trial, an attorney must do more than present the court with
unresearched and unsupported conclusory assertions. Failure to do so will subject the
attorney to personal sanctions under T.C.R.C.P.
11.
Before KRUSE, Chief Justice, TAUANU`U, Chief
Associate Judge, SAGAPOLUTELE, Associate Judge.
Counsel: For
Petitioners, Tautai A.F. Fa`alevao
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration:
The Petitioners have moved for rehearing or
reconsideration following our denial of their petition for relinquishment. Petitioners basically allege error on two
grounds. First, they allege that we
failed to correctly weigh the facts in denying the petition. Second, they allege that in denying the
petition, the court somehow violated the due process or equal protection rights
of the natural parents. The petition for
rehearing was unaccompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities. The motion came regularly for hearing on
Petitioners' attention is first directed to Judicial
Memorandum No. 2-87, 4 A.S.R.2d 172, 175 (1987). In that memorandum, the Justices pointed out
the importance of the requirement in T.C.R.C.P. 7(b)(1) that every motion
"shall state with particularity the grounds therefore." "This is especially important in the
case of a motion for a new trial, since the purpose of requiring such a motion
before an appeal is to avoid unnecessary appeals by [30ASR2d23] giving the
trial judge a chance to see the error of his ways." Judicial Memorandum No. 2-87, at
175. The importance of this has been
re-emphasized in recent opinions. See,
e.g., Masaniai v. Patea, 17 A.S.R.2d 34, 35 (App. Div. 1990); American
Samoa Government v. South Pacific Island Airsystems, Inc., 28 A.S.R.2d 167
(Trial Div. 1995) (in press); Craddick Dev. Inc., v. Craddick, 28
A.S.R.2d 170 (Trial Div. 1995) (in press).
[1] To meet this particularity
requirement, a motion for new trial must normally be accompanied by a
memorandum of points and authorities. See
T.C.R.C.P. 7(b)(1) ("Each motion shall be accompanied by . . . an
appropriate memorandum or brief which concisely states the arguments supporting
the motions and cites authorities on each point . . . ."). This is particularly true where a party is
going to assert a unique legal theory that was not raised at the original trial
or hearing, such as the denial of constitutional rights alleged here. At a minimum, a party must cite the court to
specific allegations of error, accompanied by legal citation where appropriate,
at the hearing. Where a party does not
cite specific instances of error, the motion for new trial or reconsideration
shall be denied. In extreme instances,
we may even treat the motion as a nullity, cutting off the party's right to
further appeal.
Petitioners here have failed to meet the
particularity requirement. Thus, we will
deny their motion for rehearing or reconsideration on this ground. We would like to additionally point out,
however, that we doubt petitioners' constitutional argument has any basis in
the law. To assert that a parent has a
constitutional right to waive his obligations to his child is tantamount to
asserting that a parent has a constitutional right to shirk responsibility
toward his child, to neglect or abandon his child, or even fail to make court
ordered child support payments. These
are the logical extensions of petitioners' assertion, and such a position is
preposterous.
[2] Having said that, we point
petitioners' counsel to another of this court's recent pronouncements. In Interocean Ships, Inc. v. Samoan Gases,
29 A.S.R.2d 201 at 205 (Trial Div. 1996), the entire membership of the American
Samoa Bar Association was put on notice that shoddy and unresearched work would
no longer be acceptable. In case we were
not clear, this pronouncement applies to motions for new trial or
reconsideration. In making a motion for
new trial, an attorney must do more than present the court with unresearched
and unsupported conclusory assertions.
See also In the Matter of the Matai Title Lolo, 26 A.S.R.2d 46 (Land
& Titles Div. 1994). Failure to do
so will subject the attorney to personal sanctions under T.C.R.C.P. 11. If an attorney wishes to present novel constitutional
arguments to this court, he had best be prepared to support them with precedent
or arguments to extend or change precedent.
In the future, we suggest counsel heed this warning when he files a
motion[30ASR2d24] for reconsideration or any other motion before this court.
The motion for rehearing or reconsideration is
denied.
It is so ordered.
*********