[31 ASR2d
48]
TUPUTALA SAGAPOLUTELE, ROY J.D. HALL,
JR., and DOES I-VI, Plaintiffs
v.
SAGAPOLUTELE MALAEOLA ANTHONY (aka ANTHONY
SAGAPOLUTELE), MATAKUA SAGAPOLUTELE, and the
High Court of
Land and Titles Division
LT No. 11-96
October 24, 1996
[1]
Upon an involuntary dismissal of a land dispute, the court’s
failure to direct the Registrar to register title to the land with one of the parties indicated that the
involuntary dismissal would be "without prejudice."
[2]
A family’s objection that remains on file with the Territorial
Registrar’s Office, precludes another family from receiving a certificate of
title registration to land. See
A.S.C.A. 37.0101(b).
Before
Counsel:
For Plaintiffs, Brian M. Thompson
For Defendants, Sagapolutele Malaeola Anthony and Matalua
Sagapolutele, Togiola T.A. Tulafono
For Defendant Territorial Registrar, Henry W. Kappel,
Assistant Attorney General
Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting
Motion to Dismiss:
On
March 3, 1973, defendant American Samoa Government Office of the Territorial
Registrar ("Registrar") registered title to approximately 19.52 acres of land
known as “Olepa” ("Olepa land"), situated in the Village of Ili`ili, American
Samoa, as individually owned land of Aigafealofani Faatafuna Sagapolutele
("Aigafealofani"). On September 28,
1976, Aigafealofani conveyed the Olepa land to his children, Vai F.
Sagapolutele, Ta’afili F. Sagapolutele, Latea F. Sagapolutele, Tala`i F. [31 ASR2d 49] Sagapolutele, plaintiff
Tuputala F. Sagapolutele ("Tuputala"), Pou F. Sagapolutele, Ausane F.
Sagapolutele, and Ulualo F. Sagapolutele ("the children"), as tenants in
common. However, on December 8,
1981, this court, citing procedural defects, set aside Aigafealofani's original
title registration without prejudice to his subsequent offer of title
registration of the Olepa land.
See LT No. 55-78 (February 3, 1982)(amended order).
On
April 23, 1982, Aigafealofani again offered the Olepa land for title
registration. On May 24, 1982,
members of the Sagapolutele family filed a timely objection to the registration
with the Registrar. On March 15,
1993, the Registrar submitted the dispute to this court for judicial
determination on March 15, 1993.
However, on October 14, 1983, the court dismissed the action, LT Case No.
23-83, "for mootness because of the death of Aigafealofani Faatafuna
Sagapolutele the senior matai of the Sagapolutele family."
On
July 17, 1991, the children conveyed a portion of the Olepa land to plaintiff
Roy J.D. Hall, Jr. ("Hall") as his individually owned land. On October 17, 1994, defendant
Sagapolutele Malaeola Anthony ("Sagapolutele"), then and now sa’o of the
Sagapolutele family, entered into a lease agreement with himself and his wife,
defendant Matalua Sagapolutele ("Matalua"), for a portion of the Olepa
land. The portions conveyed to Hall
and leased to Sagapolutele and Matalua overlap. On December 6, 1994, Hall and the
children objected to the proposed lease on the grounds that they respectively
owned portions of the leased land as their individually owned
land.
On
March 20, 1996, after the Secretary of Samoan Affairs certified that the dispute
was irreconcilable and the Land Commission recommended approval, the Governor
approved the lease. Sagapolutele
and Matalua proceeded with development of the leased portion. Then, June 25, 1996, Hall, Tuputala and
unnamed persons similarly situated to Tuputala (collectively "plaintiffs")
commenced this action to quiet title and enjoin
activity on the leased portion by Sagapolutele and Matalua. Plaintiffs also sought to void and
require the Registrar to "de-register" the lease.
We
issued a temporary restraining order and, after a hearing, a preliminary
injunction against Sagapolutele and Matalua pending determination of the
parties’ legal rights to the disputed property. Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment
on the grounds that the Sagapolutele family's claims to the Olepa land as
communal land were extinguished when they failed to renew their objections
following the 1983 dismissal, and that Aigafeolafani thus acquired de facto
title to the land as his individually owned land. The Registrar also moves to dismiss the
cause of action against her for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. [31 ASR2d
50]
A. Standard of
Review
A
motion for summary judgment, pursuant to T.C.R.C.P. 56, will be granted only if
the moving party can demonstrate that there are no triable issues of fact. Etimani v. Samoa
Packing, 19 A.S.R. 2d 1, 4 (1991); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
B. Dismissals
of Actions
Involuntary dismissals preclude revisiting a controversy
when the court fails to otherwise indicate that the dismissal is "without
prejudice," or when the dismissal operates as an
adjudication on the merits.
See Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2373 (1971 & Supp. 1994). For example, dismissals for lack of
jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party will not prevent a
party from raising the issues in the future because they do not address the
merits of the underlying cause of action.
The
court dismissed LT No. 23-83, "for mootness because of the death of
Aigafealofani Faatafuna Sagapolutele the senior matai of the Sagapolutele
family". Plaintiffs allege that the
court's order dismissing LT No. 23-83 constituted a "final order" that
adjudicated the merits of the controversy.
We
believe that the court's inartfully written order in LT No. 23-83 was primarily
a response to the death of one party to the dispute, and not because the
controversy was "moot." Because the
death of one party, like lack of jurisdiction or improper venue, has nothing
whatsoever to do with the merits of a case or controversy, we find that
the court did not adjudicate the issues on the merits when LT No. 23-83 was
dismissed.
[1]
Furthermore, since LT No. 23-83 constituted the sole objection to
Aigafealofani’s application for registration, the court was obliged by statute
to direct the Registrar to register title to the Olepa land as Aigafealofani's
individually owned land had the dismissal permanently snuffed out the
Sagapolutele family’s claims to the land as communal land. A.S.C.A. 37.0104(b)
("Upon adjudication of the matter by the High Court, the territorial registrar
shall register the land as directed by the court."). The court’s failure to direct the
Registrar to register title to the land with Aigafealofani indicated that the
involuntary dismissal would be "without prejudice." [31 ASR2d 51]
Therefore, we conclude that on October 14, 1983, the court
dismissed LT No. 23-83 without adjudicating the merits of the underlying land
title controversy. Both
Aigafealofani's offer of title for registration and the Sagapolutele family’s
objections were unaffected by the dismissal order.
[2]
Plaintiffs essentially argue that because the court's order of
dismissal listed "Chiefs and Members of the Sagapolutele Family" as
"Plaintiffs," that the Sagapolutele family had a burden, under T.C.R.C.P. Rule
60(b) to file another lawsuit within a reasonable time in order to preserve
their objection. Plaintiffs fail to
recognize that the language of the title registration statute does not require
aggressive prosecution by an objector.
A.S.C.A. 37.0101(b) states that "[n]o title to land shall be registered
unless the registrar is satisfied that there is no conflicting claim thereto . .
. ." Since the court's order did
not adjudicate the merits of the issues in LT No. 23-83, the Sagapolutele
family's objection remained on file with the Registrar. The existence of that objection, as a
matter of law, precluded Aigafealofani from receiving a certificate of title
registration for the Olepa land.
Because the 1982-83 dispute
between Aigafealofani and the Sagapolutele family was never resolved, the
validity of the children’s 1991 conveyance of a portion of the Olepa land to
Hall is uncertain. Significant
triable issues of fact regarding title to the Olepa land remain. Thus, we will deny the motion for
summary judgment.
C. Defendant
Registrar's Motion to Dismiss
Defendant Registrar has not wronged plaintiffs. The Registrar has steadfastly refused to
register title when there was a “conflicting claim thereto." A.S.C.A. §
37.0101(b). The Registrar
waited, and is currently waiting, for "adjudication of the matter by the
Court." A.S.C.A.
§ 37.0104. While the
Registrar may be a valuable witness for both parties in this dispute, plaintiffs
have not stated a claim against the Registrar upon which relief can be
granted. Thus, pursuant to
T.C.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6), we will dismiss the cause of
action against the Registrar.
For
the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied, and
the Registrar’s motion to dismiss is granted.
It is
so ordered.
********