WPC1 9RN6ʛh$x#+zixEwtA9)lk4ɼ15ѺǶZL8wdS".]2' p>6*Չۥ)̾&,Ax*Y iٱ&Gbm8g#9İNNuG^d b9ߎ]̗\Pa bmpETJd^fGN5UОs503<ʯ Ol9<^ \odmw[^77Mj'r$zq/*y!vg~ :)L )I@7]'t槳7Xlnq/uc`a=$W<RqlhD`|"ES~lu0IZvMJ+O 8 jmNɟ!b9O=J (6_MuU#UTNg % 0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0b 0A 0 0 0 0 0 0i 0< 0  0 0 0 0b 0= 0 0 0 0 0W 0K0 0<P 0 0>J! 0v! 0`! 0`^" 0`" 0`# 0`~# 08# 0$ 02$ 0% 0:& 0YP& 0_& 0 ' 0j( 0|) B*+ D/*+ D+Y+ 0+ D/- 07- 06. 0;. 0:C/ 0^}/ 0</UM60UR>M0U *0 B)7000 BW00U8C1f{1^ }1w14111 m111111a1HP OfficeJet T Series Printer0(,,,,0(0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K?<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 75(X7  ?A%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS&  d d4)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For78(X7  ?A%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS4)2dxd0KS.SampleK?<6X9`(Courier NewKS@\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3+  d F 2S$ Button Top/Left1+ d F 2%2A` Arial Narrowp  WecannotsayonthisshowingthatanofficialchargedwiththeresponsibilitiesoftheChief \  ElectionOfficerwhenconfrontedwiththetotalevidentiarypictureabovemustnecessarily H  concludeinfavorofpetitioner.Firstly,thecorroborativeletterofSeptember30,1988from 4  Riverside,whichwasnotoriginallymadeavailabletotherespondent,corroboratespetitioner's  p  claimonlyinpart.Theletteralsocertifiespetitioner'sdisavowedregistrationof1985.TheChief  \  ElectionOfficerseemstohaveconsideredtheclaimed_forgeryof_Ԁthe1985registrationandtohave H  beenjustifiedinrefusingtobelievepetitioner.Secondly,onthelackofinformationprovidedby 4 thepetitionerastothestatusofhisschoolingwhichwouldavailhimastatutoryexceptionto   physicalresidenceinthenormalcourse,~_A.S.C.A._Ԁ4.0102(b)(4),petitionerquitecandidly   admittedonthewitnessstandthathehadcompletedhisbacheloroflawsin1980,andthathewas  currentlywritingabook.Thesearenotthesortofcircumstanceswhichcompelsaconclusionof  "bonafide"residencyasrequiredofcandidatesforgovernorletaloneabasistoissueamandate  totheChiefElectionOfficerthathehasa"specificandwelldefinedduty"toconcludeinfavorof l petitioner'seligibilityandtoamendtheballotpapersaccordingly.4 >pYp݌ X Ќ      *w  4Wenotetwoadditionalpoints.Firstofall,althoughtheparties'discussionoftheresidencyissue D turnedonwhetherthe1985registrationwasauthentic,petitionerwouldnotnecessarilyhavebeen 0 entitledtoreliefeveniftheregistrationwereforged.Residenceisamatterofwhereonehasfixed l hishabitationandintendstoreturnuponbeingawayfromthathabitation._A.S.C.A._Ԁ6.0212(a). X Withoutanaffirmativeshowingbypetitionerofthoseadditionalfactorswhichwouldexplainhis D lengthyphysicalabsencefromtheterritory,wecouldnothaveissuedthewrit.Secondly,the 0 petitionersoughtawritofmandatewithoutdemonstratingthatbesidestheresidencyquestionhe  wasotherwiseeligibleaccordingtothestatutorycriteriatobeacandidateforGovernor.It *wEw݌   Ќ      ^{  13 !  [9ASR2d14]  ^{y{݌ " Ќ  [9ASR2d15]  |#      |  as,indeed,_Pene_Ԁhaddoneearlier.Onecannotwaituntilthelastminutetoassertrightswhentodo h$! socausesprejudicetoanother.Wetakejudicialnoticeoftheundueprejudicewhichpetitioners' T% " inactionwouldcausethegovernment.Withtheelectionbutoneweekaway,reprintingtheballots @&!# intimetosendthemouttothedistrictsandabsenteevoters,ifpossibleatall,wouldconstitutea ,'|"$ significantexpensethatwouldnothavebeenincurredhadpetitionersactedpromptlyupon (h#% receivingtheElectionOfficer'sletterofSeptember29. |:|݌ )T$& Ќ      7  Wedenyextraordinaryreliefandpetitioners'claimforcosts. 7R݌ )@%' Ќ        ItissoOrdered. ݌ *,&( Ќ      n  ********* n݌ +') Ќ        _FOUULUVALU_ԀM._EPATI_Ԁ_SCANLAN_,Appellant ݌ ,(* Ќ        v. ݌ -(+ Ќ      [  _LIKI_ԀREED,CHIEFELECTIONOFFICER,andAMERICANSAMOAGOVERNMENT,  Appellees [v݌  Ќ      N  HighCourtofAmericanSamoaAppellateDivision Ni݌  Ќ        APNo.3088  ݌ t Ќ      p  November7,1988 p݌ ` Ќ        Actionseekingremovalofacandidatefromthelistofthoseeligibletoruninanelection,filedless L  thantwobusinessdayspriortotheelection,wouldnotbesetforhearingpriortotheelection. ݌ 8  Ќ      Q  BeforeREES,AssociateJustice. Ql݌ $ t Ќ        Counsel:ForAppellant,Charles_Ala'ilima_Ԁ ݌  ` Ќ        Memorandum: ݌  L  Ќ         ThisisarequestforreviewofanorderoftheChiefElectionOfficer.Itseekstheremoval  ;݌  8  Ќ        15  ݌ $  Ќ      f  [9ASR2d16]  f݌   Ќ  [9ASR2d17]          BeforeKING*,ActingAssociateJustice,KAY**,ActingAssociateJustice,_TOGAFAU_***,   ActingAssociateJustice,_LUALEMAGA_,AssociateJudge,and_VAIVAO_,AssociateJudge. +݌ p Ќ        Counsel:ForAppellant,_Aviata_Ԁ_Fa'alevao_ԀForAppellees,Charles_Ala'ilima_Ԁ ݌ \ Ќ        Per_Curiam_: ׌݌ H Ќ      [  Thisisalanddisputeconcerningafifthofanacreoflawnwhichisoverlappedbytwosurveys 4 madebythe_Suapilimai_Ԁand_Faleafine_Ԁfamilies. [v݌  p Ќ        The_Faleafine_Ԁfamilyandthe_Leituala_/_Suapilimai_Ԁfamilyhavebeenneighborsforatleastforty  \ years.Theirhomesarelocateduponborderingplotsoflandin_Ili'ili_Ԁvillage.Theareanowin H disputeislocatedbetweentheirhomes,andhasbeenoccupiedorusedatvarioustimesbyboth 4 sidestothislitigation. ̎݌   Ќ        Foratleasttwentyyearspriorto1973therewasasmallguesthouse(_fale_)ontheareaoccupied   byvariousrelativesoftheappellant,andherfamilystillmaintainsacookinghut(_umu_)there.The  tracthasalsobeenusedbymembersofappellees'familyformanyyears.Attrialtherewas  testimonythatthetwofamilieshadbeenveryfriendlyformanyyearsandbothusedand  maintainedtheareaamicably.Therehave,however,beentwointerruptionsofthesefriendly l relations,oncein1973andoncemorerecently,leadingtothepresentlitigation. 4݌ X  Ќ      Z  *HonorableSamuelP.King,SeniorJudge,UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictof D! Hawaii,servingbydesignationoftheSecretaryoftheInterior. Zu݌ 0"  Ќ        **HonorableAlanC.Kay,DistrictJudge,UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofHawaii, #l! servingbydesignationoftheSecretaryoftheInterior. ݌ $X" Ќ        ***Honorable_Malaetasi_ԀM._Togafau_,Judge,DistrictCourtofAmericanSamoa,servingby $D # designationoftheSecretaryoftheInterior. ݌ %0!$ Ќ        17 ݌ &"% Ќ      i  [9ASR2d18]  i݌ '#& Ќ  [9ASR2d19]  (#'       _Letuligasenoa_Ԁfamily,thattherewasjointuseandmaintenanceofthedisputedlandbybothsides, )$( andthattheboundarysettlementbyChiefLetuligasenoawhichallottedthetracttoFaleafinehad |*%) beenrecognizedbybothsides. ,݌ h+&* Ќ        Where,ashere,eachsidehaspresentedevidencetothetrialcourtwhichsupportsitsown T,'+ interpretationofthesituation,thetrialcoi~rt'sfindingswillnotbedisturbedunlessclearly @-(, erroneous.A.S.C.A.43.0801(b).ThetrialcourtwaspersuadedbytheevidenceofFaleafine,  andthereissubstantialevidencetoSupportthatchoice. ˚݌  Ќ  ThejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED  ********* ` _SATELE_Ԁ_MOMOSEA_Ԁ_UOKA_,Appellant L  v. 8      ŝ  _UIAGALELEI_Ԁ_IONA_,_UIAGALELEI_Ԁ_LEALOFI_,_TUIASOSOPO_Ԁ_MARIOTA_,and_FALE_ $ t _FAI'AI_,Appellants ŝ݌  ` Ќ        _UIAGALELEI_Ԁ_IONA_,_UIAGALELEI_Ԁ_LEALOFI_,andthe_UIAGALELEI_ԀFAMILY,Appellants ݌  L  Ќ        v. ݌  8  Ќ      u  _FALE_Ԁ_FAI'AI_Ԁand_TUIASOSOPO_Ԁ_MARIOTA_,Appellees u݌ $  Ќ        _TUIASOSOPO_Ԁ_MARIOTA_ԀII,Appellant ݌   Ќ      j  v. j݌   Ќ        _SATELE_Ԁ_MOMOSEA_,_UIAGALELEI_Ԁ_IONA_,_UIAGALELEI_Ԁ_LEALOFI_,and_FALE_Ԁ_FAI'AI_Ԁfor   herselfandtheHEIRSOF_FAtAILOILO_,Appellees ݌   Ќ        HighCourtofAmericanSamoaAppellateDivision ݌ p Ќ        APNo.588APNo.788APNo.888 ݌ \ Ќ      6  19 H  [9ASR2d20]  6Q݌ 4 Ќ  [9ASR2d21]   p       wasofferedforregistration,appellants_Uiagalelei_Ԁand_Tuiasosopo_Ԁandappellee_Faiai_Ԁresponded  \ claiming_Satele_Ԁhadencroachedupontheirland. ݌ H Ќ        BecausetheAmericanSamoanGovernmentneededtoexpanditslandfillandsoneededtoknow 4 withwhomtonegotiateforthisexpansion,thetrialcourtdecidedtoadjudicateonlythatportion   ofthelandcurrentlyoccupiedbythelandfillandthatportionofthelandcurrentlycontemplated   forthelandfill'sexpansion.Approximately35.5acresofthe60acreswereadjudicatedbythe  court. ݌  Ќ      ۫  trial,_Satele_Ԁand_Uiagalelei_Ԁpresentedsurveyswhichhadbeencommissionedspecificallyfortrial.  Appellee_Faiai_Ԁpresentedsurveysthathadbeendonein1912and1914.Thecourtfoundthe1912 l surveycoveringtenacreshadbeenregisteredwiththeTerritorialRegistrar.Appellant_Tuiasosopo_ X  didnotpresentanysurveys. ۫݌ D! Ќ      L  At Lg݌ 0"  Ќ      ®  Thetrialconclusions: ®ݮ݌ #l! Ќ      L  court Lg݌ $X" Ќ      ů  made ů݌ $D # Ќ      =  the =X݌ %0!$ Ќ        following ϰ݌ &"% Ќ      1  (1)_Satele_Ԁownsnoinvolvedinthiscase.(2)_Tuiasosopo_Ԁownsoneacre.(3)_Uiagalelei_Ԁowns '#& approximatelyacres.(4)acres. 1L݌ (#' Ќ        partoftheland ݌ )$( Ќ        _Faiai_Ԁ 3݌ |*%) Ќ        owns ̳݌ h+&* Ќ      )  approximately )D݌ T,'+ Ќ        3.7830.72 Ŵ݌ @-(, Ќ      (  _Uiagalelei_Ԁfiledamotionforanewtrialorrelieffromjudgment,claimingcounselhaddiscovered  newevidence.Thecourtdeniedthismotionbecauseitwasuntimelyandwithoutmerit. (C݌  Ќ        Intheearly1900s,_Fauolo_Ԁachiefof_Setetaga_Ԁclearedthevirginbrushfrom_Fasamea_._Fauolo_  was_Satele_'sbrotherinlawandcontinuedthroughouthislifetorender_Satele_Ԁtheserviceduethe t highestchiefinthecounty. ݌ ` Ќ      Ƹ  Thetrialcourtfoundthat_Fasamea_Ԁwasnot_Satele_Ԁfamilylandwhen_Fauolo_Ԁarrivedonitandthat L  _Fauolo_Ԁdidnotintendtomakeit_Satele_Ԁland.In1912,_Fauolo_Ԁregisteredabouttenacresof 8  _Fasamea_Ԁashisownindividuallyownedland. Ƹ݌ $ t Ќ      *  In1914,_Fasamea_Ԁwas_resurveyed_Ԁandthencovered35.5acres.Thetrialcourtspecifically  ` reserveddecidingwhether_Fauolo_Ԁregisteredthis *E݌  L  Ќ        21  8   [9ASR2d22]  ݌ $  Ќ  [9ASR2d23]        ]  treatiesortheRevisedConstitution.Infact,thecourtendeditshistoricaldiscussionbycitingthe   descriptionofindividuallyownedlandin_Fanene_Ԁv._Talio_,LTNo.6477(1977),andbynotingthe   Samoanlegislature'seffortstodefineindividuallyownedland.Appellantoverstateshisargument   incontendingthe_Leuma_Ԁcourtfoundaviolation. ]x݌ p Ќ      ǿ  AppellantalsoarguesthatrecentSamoan_caselaw_Ԁ"hasrecognizedthetreatyandconstitutional \ problemswithindividuallyownedland."Asaresult,appellantclaims,"[_p]rior_Ԁtothiscasethe H judicialcreationofindividuallyownedlandhadallbutceasedtooccur."Theonlycasethat 4 appellantcitesasevidenceofthisclaimdealswithaparceloflandalreadyfoundtobecommunal  p land;sothiscase'srelevancetoappellant'sargumentisunclear. ǿ݌  \ Ќ        Inrespondingtoappellant'sclaim,appelleecitesReidv._Puailoa_,1A.S.R.2d85(1983),wherethe H courtheldthat"sincealllandwasoncecommunalland,thereisapresumptionthatalllandstillis. 4 "._r.g._Ԁat87.ThecourtfoundtheprovisionsofthecessiontreatiesandArticleI,section3,ofthe   RevisedConstitutionofAmericanSamoapreservedtherightsofthenativeinhabitantsand   supportthefindingofsuchapresumption.._r.g._ԀThecourtreasonedthattheseprovisions"arenot  intendedtoforcetheretentionofcustom,culture,andtraditionuponSamoans,butinsteadto  assurethattheSamoanwayoflifeisallowedtofollowitsownpath."._r.g._ԀHowever,the_coIArt_  heldthatanypartyassertingthataparcelisnotcommunallandmustovercomethepresumption l thatitiscommunalland. ݌ X  Ќ      k  Whilethecourtbelowdidnotexplicitlyrefertothispresumptioninitsfindingthatthelandwas D! not_Satele_Ԁfamilyland,_Fauolo_'sregisteringtenacresofthelandinhisownnamein1912without 0"  anyobjectionfrom_Satele_,justacoupleofyearsafterenteringuponandclearingit,andthen #l! surveyingtheentire35acresin1914andsubsequentlyconveyingitbywarrantydeedtohis $X" daughterissufficienttoovercomethispresumption. k݌ $D # Ќ      F  Appellant_Uiagalelei_ԀcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinrelyingupontheStipulatedJudgment %0!$ approvedbyJustice_Jochimsen_Ԁtofindthe_Uiagalelei_Ԁfamilysoldoneacreoflandto Fa݌ &"% Ќ        23 '#&  [9ASR2d24]  ݌ (#' Ќ  [9ASR2d25]  )$(       _LOLANI_Ԁ_SESE_,_MEAFOU_Ԁ_SESE_,_SU'A_ԀSCHUSTER,STARRSCHUSTER,andtheESTATE |*%) OF_ALEKI_Ԁ_NOA_,Plaintiffs ݌ h+&* Ќ      l  v. l݌ T,'+ Ќ        _MISIPELE_Ԁ_LEOTA_Ԁand_TAGIILIMA_Ԁ_LEOTA_,Defendants ݌ @-(, Ќ        HighCourtofAmericanSamoaLand&TitlesDivision ݌  Ќ        LTNo.588 ݌  Ќ      )  November10,1988 )D݌  Ќ        Whereatractofland,whichwasoncepartofalargertractwhoseownersubdividedandsold t partsofit,isfoundtobewithoutaccesstoaroad,aneasementarisesbyimplicationoverthe ` otherpartorpartsofthelandsubdivided,ifsucheasementisstrictlynecessaryforthebeneficial L  useofthetractsold. ݌ 8  Ќ        Animpliedeasementofnecessityinfavorofaparcelsubdividedandsoldfromlargertract,in $ t ordertoprovideaccesstoaroad,willexist(1)onlyagainstadjoininglandsretainedor  ` subsequentlysoldbythegrantor,,(2)onlywheretheeasementisstrictlynecessaryforthe  L  beneficialuseofthetractsold,and(3)onlyforsolongasthenecessitycontinues;m~re  8  inconveniencewillnotgiverisetoan_impli_~deasementofnecessity. ݌ $  Ќ      5  Impliedeasementofnecessityisbaseduponapublicpolicythatfavorsfullutilizationofland,so   thatthegrantorispresumedtoconveywhateverisnecessaryforthebeneficialuseoftheland;the   easementwillthereforebeimpliedregardlessoftheactualintentionsoftheparties. 5P݌   Ќ        Inactionforanimpliedeasementofnecessity,thatthegrantorhadregisteredtheproposed   dominantparcel,buthadneverregisteredtheproposed_servient_Ԁparcelorthelargertractfrom p whichbothhadbeensubdivided,didnotprecludefindingthatasinglegrantoronceheldunityof \ titleoverthoseparcels,sinceownershipof  ݌ H Ќ         25 4  [9ASR2d26]   '݌  p Ќ  [9ASR2d27]   \       ofoverlappingpiecesof_landl_Ԁaswellasdisputesconcerningtheverysamepieceoflandbeing H soldtwice.2Additionally,asmaybegatheredfromthefactshere,landsubdivisionshaveresulted 4 withoutanythoughtgiventotheorderlyreservationofrightsofway,notonlyfortheaccessof   people,butalsofortheconvenientdevelopmentofsuchpublicservicesto_homesites_Ԁasutility,   telephone,water,andsewerlines.Itisinevitablewiththissortofindividualizedlanddevelopment  thatthebuyingpublicfrequentlysufferswhilethecourts(aswellasutilitysupplyingand  developmentplanningagencies)arelefttoworkout,alsoinapiecemeal_fashi,on_,practical  solutionstowhatisgenerallyanimpracticalmess.Theemergingpictureisusuallythekindof l _hodge_Ԅ_podge_Ԁlanddevelopmentthatgivesatownplannernightmares.Intermsofundeveloped X  lands,therefore,itisperhapsveryaptforthe_Fono_Ԁtotakeahandinthematterofoverallland D! development,byregulatingsubdivisionsandcoordinatingindividualdevelopmenteffortsagainst 0"  someterritorialplanningstandards.Itgoeswithoutsayingthattheterritory'srealproperty #l! resourcesarelimitedandareinneedofmoremeticuloususemanagement, ݌ $X" Ќ        Facts ݌ $D # Ќ      5  Thepartieshereto,savefortheplaintiffestate,were,atdifferenttimes,purchasersoflandfrom %0!$ thelate_Aleki_Ԁ_Noa_Ԁ(hereinafterreferredtoasthe"grantor'.).In1985,twooftheplaintiffs,the &"% _Schusters_,hadpurchasedathirdofanacrefromgrantorasan"investment,"The_Schusters_Ԁhave '#& sincebecomelandlockedastheresultofasubsequentsaletodefendants,_Misipele_Ԁand_Tagi'ilima_ (#' _Leota_.Withthesl~_bsequent_Ԁandstrategicplacementofcertainstructuresbytheirfellowgrantees )$( locatednearertothemainroad,coupledwithanequivocalstancetakenbythegrantor,the |*%) _Schusters_Ԁnowfind,intermsofreadyaccess,thattheirinvestmentcouldjustaswellbeinthe h+&* midstoftheFloridaEverglades. 5P݌ T,'+ Ќ      $  ~Moonv._Falemalama_, $?݌ @-(, Ќ        4_A.S.R_,836 ݌  Ќ      m  (1975), m݌  Ќ        2~_Manl_~mav.Bartley,(1986), ݌  Ќ        LT ݌ t Ќ        No,1586 .݌ ` Ќ        27 L   [9ASR2d28]  ݌ 8  Ќ  [9ASR2d29]  $ t     Q  toapointwhentheir_their_Ԁpropertyandaway_Schusters_'boundarysimilarlytestifiedthat  ` physicallypointedouttotheyhadfirstmovedinto Ql݌  L  Ќ        rightofwayforkedtowardsfromthe_Seses_'andthedirection.Defendantstheirrightofwaywas  8  thembythegrantorafterthearea. ݌ $  Ќ        Thetestimonyaccordingtothedefendantswentontostatethatthegrantorin1987foundhimself   inneedofmoney,andafterpersistentofferstodefendants,anotherlandsalewasstruckbetween   them,Thisconveyancenotonlyextendeddefendants'holdingtowardsthedirectionofthemain   roadbutincludedtheopenareaoflandreferredtoabove.Thustheinlandpartoftherightofway   astheothergranteesknewithadbeensoldbythegrantor,apparentlywithouttheirknowledge. p Forabriefwhilethereafter,the_Seses_Ԁgottotheirlandswithoutcomplaintswhilethe_Schusters_ \ rarelyvisitedtheirs. ݌ H Ќ      ]  Withthematterof"pule"overthelandremainingconfused,theinevitableland_displAte_ 4 occurred.Theevidencedidnotdisclosewhatfirstfusedthedisputebutdefendantsasserted  p unequivocallytheir"pule"byerectingaratherimposingcementblockwallextendingallalong  \ whathasnowbecometheircommonboundarylinewiththe_Schusters_Ԁandthe_Seses_.Defendants H havehoweverallowedthe_Seses_Ԁsometenfeetalongtheboundaryasaturningareaintotheir 4 land, ]x݌   Ќ        Whendefendantsbegantorestrictaccess,plaintiffscomplainedtothegrantorwhoissaidtohave   attemptedtoundotheconveyancetodefendants,Thetestimonywasconflictinghere.The  grantor'swidowthoughtthatherhusbandwantedtoundoawrong_commi_Ԁ_tted_Ԁuponthe  _Schu.sters_Ԁbecausetheconveyancepurportedtodisposeoftheirrightofway.Ontheotherhand,  defendantstestifiedthatgrantorwaswellawareofwhathewasofferingtosell.Hehadadvised l defendantsbeforethepurchasethatthe_Schusters_Ԁwouldbeprovidedanalternativeaccessover X  the_Sese_Ԁpropertywhich,grantorhadclaimedatthetime,remainedunsold. ݌ D! Ќ        Infact,atthispointintimethe_grant.or_Ԁhadalreadysoldthe_Seses_Ԁtheirpropertyasevidencedby 0"  theirsalesagreement.Subsequently,thegrantordiedandthematterfinallyfounditswaytocourt. #l! The_Seses_Ԁtestifythattheyaregreatly ݌ $X" Ќ      }  [9ASR2d30]  }݌ $D # Ќ  [9ASR2d31]  %0!$     %  Onthefacts,theapplicationofthelawshouldbestraightforward.Butthereisafurtheraspectto &"% thislanddevelopmentthatmustbeconsidered. %@݌ '#& Ќ      @  Firstly,thegovernment'schiefsurveyortestifiedthathehaddrawnupsomethreeorfouryears (#' agoacompositemapforthegrantortoascertaintheextentofhissalesandtoaidinresolving )$( somerightsofwayproblemsalsoexistingwithlandlockedgranteestothe_Fogagogo_Ԁroad.The |*%) compositerevealsthenineacretractasanuntidyjigsawpuzzlewithamissingpieceinthemiddle h+&* (aninsignificantpartofthelandunsoldandlandlocked).Themapalsoshowspropertylying T,'+ outsidethetractitself.Bothplaintiffsareinsidethenineacretractwhileoutsidethenineacre @-(, tractandadjacenttoits_Iliili_Ԁboundary,lietheaccesswayaswellasthe_Leota_Ԁlotswhichhave  mergedwithwhatwastheinlandpartoftheaccess.Theserelevantportionsoutsidethenineacre  tractaresaidtobealsoclaimedbyathirdpartywhocontestsgrantor'sclaimtotitle. @[݌  Ќ        Defendantthereforearguesasfollows:Inordertoclaimaneasementbynecessitytheremusthave t been"unity"intitleatsometimeoverthedominantand_servient_Ԁparcelsfollowedbyaseverance ` thereof;thatsincetitletotheportionssoldtodefendantiscontingentandsubjecttoattackbya L  thirdparty,itmaynotbesaidthattherehasbeenthisunityandaseveranceintitleinordertogive 8  risetoadominant/_servient_Ԁrelationship, 2݌ $ t Ќ        Additionally,defendantsclaimthatanimpliedeasementcanonlyarisewithinthelimitsofthenine  ` acretractsincethisistheonlyparcelclaimedbythegrantorwhichhasbeenregistered.4 ݌  L  Ќ         4Theevidencerevealedthat.at.onetimethedefendantsfirstwentupontheirlandbywayof $  accessthroughSpencer'slandwithinthenineacres'_Ili'ili_Ԁboundaryline.The_Seses_Ԁalsoutilized   thiswayofpassageforashorttimeuntilSpencer'slandwasbarredbythedefendantssupposedly   onbehalfofSpencer.Defendants'testimony_wa,s_ԀthattheyarerelatedtoSpencerandwere   initiallyusinghislandforaccessathissufferance.Itwaswhenaccesswasclosedthrough  ;݌   Ќ         [9ASR2d32]   ;݌ p Ќ  [9ASR2d33]  \       Ontheothersideofthecoin,wehavenotedthataneasementbyimplicationmaynotariseover H thelandsofastranger.~n.3,supra.Attheriskofoverstatingtheobvious,thislegallimitation 4 onlyariseswherethestrangerholdsabsolutetitletothoseaffectedlands.Itwouldbeneedless  p extensionofthenotedlegallimitation(andanunwarranteddilutionofthepublicpolicybehindthe  \ commonlaw)toprecludeanimpliedeasementofnecessitybecauseofthepossibilityofclaimsby H astranger.Inasense,suchanattemptwouldindeedbetantamounttogivingsanctiontothe 4 assumptionthattitleisinthestranger.Merelybecausethereisacontingencythatastrangermay   contestthegrantor'stitletopartofthesubdividedlandsitdoesnotfollowasamatteroflawthat   thestrangerhasbettertitletothesubservienttenementsoastodefeattheimplicationofan  easement. ݌  Ќ      o   WeholdthatthereisneitherneednorroomfortheCourtinthisinstancetobeconcernedwith  whetherthereisatitledisputewithastrangerandthedeterminationofthatdisputebeforethe l reliefsoughtheremaybeconsidered.Thisholdingtakesintoaccountthefollowing X  circumstances:theallegedclaimsbythethirdpartyhavenotbeenzealouslymade;the_Leotas_ D! movedintotheareawithabulldozershortlyafteracquiringtheirfirstlotfromgrantorin1983; 0"  therightofwaywasearlymovedtooutsidetheregisterednineacretractontotheallegedly #l! disputedland;the_Leotas_Ԁhavebuilthousesontheareaclaimedasdisputed;andtheevidenceofa $X" disputebythethirdpartydidnotamounttotoomuchmorethantheallegationby_Leota_Ԁofa $D # dispute,whichallegationwasofferedmoreinthesentimentofadefense.5 o  ݌ %0!$ Ќ      "  Onthefactsbeforeus,wefindtherewasunityoftitleandaseveranceoflandgivingrisetoan &"% easementbyimplicationatcommonlaw.Wefurtherconcludethatthecommonlawdoctrineis '#& applicableintheterritorybyvirtueof_A.S.C.A._Ԁ1.0201(4).Thepublicpolicybehindthe (#' doctrine,thebeneficialuseoflands,mustundeniablyapply "=݌ )$( Ќ      P  5Weimaginethatthesentimentwouldquiteobviouslybeotherwiseinthecontextofanactual |*%) casewiththethirdparty. Pk݌ h+&* Ќ      Q  [9ASR2d34]  Ql݌ T,'+ Ќ  [9ASR2d35]  @-(,       shouldaddressparties. ݌  Ќ        thereasonable ݌  Ќ        convenienceofboth !݌  Ќ        ItisOrderedthatthedefendants_Misipele_Ԁand_Tagiilima_Ԁ_Leota_,andallthosetakingby,through, t andunderthem,areherebyenjoinedandrestrainedfrommaintainingsomuchofthatstoneand ` concretewalllocatedonorneartheircommonboundarywiththeplaintiffs,_Su'a_ԀandStarr L  Schuster,whichispreventingtheplaintiffsfromreasonableaccesstotheiradjacentproperty. ݌ 8  Ќ      7  Thepartiesshallhavejudgmentaccordingly. 7R݌ $ t Ќ        ********* ݌  ` Ќ      T  _SIO_Ԁ_PALELEI_,Appellant To݌  L  Ќ        v. 9݌  8  Ќ        STAR_KIST_ԀSAMOA,Inc.,Appellee ݌ $  Ќ      H  HighCourtofAmericanSamoaAppellateDivision Hc݌   Ќ        APNo.188 ݌   Ќ      i  November14,1988 i݌   Ќ        Trialcourtimproperlyawardedsummaryjudgmentindefendantemployer'sfavorasmaterialfacts   remainedindisputewhere,ofthetwogroundsonwhichemployermightlegallyhaveterminated p plaintiff'semployment,defendantdeniedoneandplaintiffdeniedtheother.  ݌ \ Ќ         Statementsofcounselatoralargumentonamotionforsummaryjudgmentarenotasubstitute H foraffidavitsbasedonpersonalknowledgeandshouldnotbeusedbythecourtasabasisfor 4 factualdetermination.   ݌  p Ќ      "  Before ""݌  \ Ќ      {"  KING*, {""݌ H Ќ      "  Acting "#݌ 4 Ќ      o#  Associate o##݌   Ќ      #  Justice, #$݌   Ќ      h$  KAY**, h$$݌  Ќ      $  *HonorableSamuelP.King,SeniorJudge,UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictof  Hawaii,servingbydesignationof $$݌  Ќ      %  [9ASR2d36]  %&݌ l Ќ  [9ASR2d37]  X  Infiring_Palelei_,Star_Kist_Ԁdidnotfollowthesystemofprogressivedisciplinewhichissetoutin D! theemployeehandbookdistributedtoallemployees.Thissystemconsistsof_counselling_Ԁbythe 0"  employee'ssupervisorandaverbalwarning,writtenwarningwiththepossibilityofaoneday #l! _suspens_Ԁion,andf_inally_Ԁa"lastchance,"withthedeterminationtosuspendorterminatemadein $X" conjunctionwiththepersonnelmanager.Thehandbookalsolistseighteendifferentoffenses $D # whichmayleadtoterminationforafirstoffense,withoutthebenefitofthesuccessivediscipline %0!$ procedure.Thislistincludesinsubordinationorwillfuldisobediencetoanorder,assignment,or &"% instruction,andgivingorreceivingfreepunchesorwrongpunchesforfishbeingcleaned._Palelei_ '#& wasnotgivenanopportunitytocontesttheaccuracyofthebasisforthewarning. (#'     b+  _Palelei_ԀsuedforwrongfulterminationonthegroundthatStar_Kist_Ԁviolatedhiscontractualrightto )$( thesuccessivedisciplineprocedureoutlinedinthemanual. b+}+݌ |*%) Ќ      ,  Thesequenceofeventsallegedintheverifiedcomplaintisasfollows: ,,݌ h+&* Ќ      -  9/OnOctober9th,1986,therewasaproblemintheprocesswhichcreatedabacklogoffishat T,'+ thecleaningtables. --݌ @-(, Ќ      .  10/supervisorproductionfishonreasonably ..݌  Ќ       /  Plaintiffwasexpectedbyhistoincreasehistable'sbyplacingmorebasketsofthetablethancould  behandledbythecleaners.  /;/݌  Ќ      )0  11/Plaintiffmaintainedthenormalroutinetoavoidoverloadingthecleaners. )0D0݌ t Ќ      0  12/Acomplaintwasmadethatdayagainstplaintiffandhewassummarilysuspendedfromhis ` employmentbyhissupervisor,HenryBernard. 01݌ L  Ќ      1  Defendant'sanswerdeniestheseallegationsand"specificallydeniesPlaintiffwassummarily 8  suspendedfromemployment."Defendantanswersfurtherasfollows: 12݌ $ t Ќ      !3  [9ASR2d38]  !3<3݌  ` Ќ  [9ASR2d39]   L      3  Preliminarily,defendant'smotionforsummaryjudgmentisdefectiveinnotbeingsupportedby  8  affidavitsbasedonpersonalknowledge.Thestatementbytheindustrialrelationsmanagerthat $  plaintiffhad"admitted"wrongdoingisatbestambiguous.Thetrialcourtconcludedthatplaintiff   wasproperlyterminatedbecausehewaseitherguiltyofinsubordinationoroffalsifyingrecords.   Butdefendantdeniesinitsanswerthatplaintiffwasterminatedforinsubordinationandplaintiff   denies"overpunching."Muchofthefactualmaterialinthetrialcourt'sdecisionwasbasedon   statementsofcounselattheargumentonthesummaryjudgment.Suchstatementsarenota p substituteforaffidavitsbasedonpersonalknowledge. 33݌ \ Ќ      7  Thegrantingofdefendant'sMotionforSummaryJudgmentisreversedandthecaseisremanded H forfurtherproceedingsconsistentherewith. 77݌ 4 Ќ      8  ********* 88݌  p Ќ      ,9  _LEALAIMATAFAO_Ԁ_MASE_,Plaintiff ,9G9݌  \ Ќ      9  v. 9:݌ H Ќ      s:  _LAUTELE_Ԁ_NOA_,Defendant s::݌ 4 Ќ      =;  _FAIGAME_Ԁ_LAUTELE_ԀIOTAfor_Lautele_Ԁ_Iuta_ԀandOverland_Olotoa_,Plaintiffs =;X;݌   Ќ      <  v. <<݌   Ќ       =  _LEALAIMATAFAO_Ԁ_MASE_Ԁforthe_Lealaimatafao_ԀFamily,Defendants  ='=݌  Ќ      >  LTNo.2982LTNo.3587 >6>݌  Ќ      >  HighCourtofAmericanSamoaLand&TitlesDivision >>݌  Ќ      M?  November17,1988 M?h?݌ l Ќ      ?  Wherelandclaimant,anuntitledman,contendedthattheopposingparty,arankingmataiofthe X  village,hadcometohimlookingforaplacetoplantcropsandthathehadgiventhematai ??݌ D! Ќ  [9ASR2d40]  0"   [9ASR2d41]  #l!     _A  propertyandhencethesemattersconsolidatedfortrialonthemerits, _AzA݌ $X" Ќ      B  have B4B݌ $D # Ќ      B  been BB݌ %0!$ Ќ       C  Mrs.Overland_Olotoa_'sinterestinthismatterarisesthrough_Lautele_Ԁwhoissaidtohavesoldher &"% thesouthernhalfofthelandasclaimedby_Lautele_,hencetheyellowbisectionof_Lautele_'sclaim '#& asseenin_Exhibi_Ԁt"1".  C$C݌ (#' Ќ      %E  Thelandisboundedatitsnorthernextremebythe_Iliili_/Airporthighway,extendinginthe )$( southeastand_sami_Ԁdirectiontothegovernmentairportboundaryfence.Onitswesternborderare |*%) landswhichhavebeenregisteredin_individ_\~alownershipbyone_Aleki_Ԁ_Noa_.Itseasternorairport h+&* sideabutssome12.5acreswhichhavebeenregisteredby_Lautele_Ԁinindividualownership,Much T,'+ ofthisregisteredlandhasbeensoldby_Lautele_ԀtoMrs._Olotoa_. %E@E݌ @-(, Ќ      H  Thetestimonyasexpectedwasconflictingasthepartiesareclaimingessentiallythesameland  area. HH݌  Ќ      I  _Fao_Ԁistheseniormataiofthe_Lealaimatafao_Ԁfamilyof_Iliili_Ԁandarankingmataiofthe_Tualauta_  County.Heiseightyyearsoldandhasheldhisfamily'stitlesince1957.Hetestifiedthathisfamily t hasmanylandsscatteredthroughoutthecountyoccupiedbyvariousfamilymembers,Hetestified ` thathefirstwentonthedisputedlandandcommencedclearingitintheyear1961.Thereasonhe L  wentintotheareawasthatitwasvirginbushatthetimeandthatothermembersofhisfamilyhad 8  alsocomeintothevicinityforthesamereasons.Hefurthertestifiedthathisclearingand $ t occupationextendedfromthehighwayallthewaytothegovernment'sairportfence.Fromthe  ` fruitsofhislabor,healsoclaimedthathehadobtainedagovernmentcontracttosupplythe  L  hospitalwithtaroandvegetablesintheyear1963._Fao_Ԁalsoclaimedtohavehadahomebuilton  8  thelandtogetherwithawatertank.Inthosedaysbeforewaterdevelopmentreachedthearea,his $  tankwasasourceofwaterforotherpeopleworkingnearby.Thehomewassaidtohavebeen   _levelled_Ԁbythehurricaneof1966andneverrebuilt._Fao_Ԁtestifiedthatsincethehurricanehehad   ceasedfurthermajorprojectsonthelandalthoughhecontinuesusingthecropsthereon. II݌   Ќ  [9ASR2d42]     [9ASR2d43]  p     Q  hadbeen_levelled_Ԁandthelandwascoveredwithundergrowth.Withregardtothehomeclaimed \ by_Fao_Ԁashavingbeenbuiltonthelandwithoutpermissionfrom_Lautele_,thelatterrespondedthat H thesaidbuildingwaserectedatatimewhenhewasagainoffisland.In_Lautele_'sassessment,the 4 homebuiltby_Fao_Ԁwasnothingmorethanthesortoftypicalmakeshiftplantationstructurewhich  p familieswouldbuildforrestperiodsduringawork_day.l_Ԁ QQ݌  \ Ќ      ET  As_Lautele_Ԁfoundbuyersforland,hewouldhaveanareasurveyedandthenseekto_procl_~re H registrationinindividualownership.Hesuccessfullyregisteredsome12acresoflandwithout 4 objectionsuntil_Fao_Ԁgotnoticeoftheparticularregistrationattemptnowbeforeus,The   registrationherewassoughtafterclaimant_Lautele_Ԁhadagreedtosellsome2acrestoMrs,   _Olotoa_,Bywayofexplainingbackgroundtothesale,Mrs._Olotoa_Ԁtestifiedthatshehad  previouslyacquiredsomeotherparcelsfrom_Lautele_.Shestatedthatovertheyears,_Lautele_Ԁhad  beenagoodbusinesscustomerofhers.Shehelped_Lautele_Ԁwithhisownbusinessbysupplying  himcredit.Asheofferedherlandforsale,shewouldgivehimthepurchasepriceandhe,inturn, l wouldattendtosecuringregistrationandfinallydeliveradeed.Inthissamefashionsherecalls X  givingclaimant$18,000or$19,000for_ano_Ԁher2acresoflandin1980.With_Fao_'sobjection,she D! isstillawaitingadeedonthislastpurchase.WhenMrs._Olotoa_Ԁwasaskedbythecourt_whethe_ 0"  sheobtainedlegaladviceforherlandtransactions,sherespondedthatshetrustedclaimantand #l! essentiallytooka"gamble"eachtimethathewoulddeliver.Claimanthadprovedreliableon_prio_ $X" sales. ET`T݌ $D # Ќ      T\  Whatisimpliedbyclaimant_Lautele_Ԁisthatapermanentstructureplacedonatractoflandisan %0!$ unequivocalassertionof"pule"orownership.Theconstructionofaplantationrestplacewhichis &"% notpermanentinnatureandeasilydismantledisanequivocalact.Hearguedthattheprovisional '#& natureof_Fao_'sstructurewasevidencedbyitsdestructioninthe1966hurricanewhereasa (#' Samoantype_fale_Ԁwhichhehadbuiltinthevicinityhadwithstoodthat.storm.Itwashisstructure )$( thatwasmorepermanentinnature, T\o\݌ |*%) Ќ  [9ASR2d44]  h+&*  [9ASR2d45]  T,'+     _  areaandcommencedvirginbush. __݌ @-(, Ќ      q`  clearing, q``݌  Ќ      `  thelandwasstill ` a݌  Ќ      ta  Additionally,thenatureofthehomebuiltonthedisputedlandissimplyinconsistentwith  permissiveuse.Theattemptbyclaimant_Lautele_,aswellashiswitness_Sipili_Ԁ_Atualevao_,toplay t downthesignificanceofthisinconsistency,byreferringtothehomebuiltasbeingonlya ` provisionalplantationreststructure,didnothingmorethantainttheircredibility.Allagreedthat L  thehousewasatwostorystructure.ThehousewasbuiltbyaRev.lese_Aasa_,alsoof_lliili_Ԁatthe 8  time,andhisson_Avemaia_Ԁ_Aasa_.Thelatterdescribedthebuildingasatwostory.'L"shaped $ t structure,16'x24'+16'x16'indimension.Theupperstorywasconstructedofwoodwhichsaton  ` concretecolumnswhilethegroundfloorareawasleft_unwalled_Ԁoropen. taa݌  L  Ќ      ^f  Thebuildingofthislargefamilyhome,coupledwiththeconstructionofawatertankinathen  8  undevelopedareaandtheestablishmentofacommercialfarm,areallrealevidenceofsettled $  occupationby_Fao_Ԁintheareaandquitetheantithesisofborrowedsurroundings. ^fyf݌   Ќ      (h  Againstthis,counselforclaimantarguesthatbecausethereareextensiveregisteredindividual   holdingstotheairportsideofthedisputedlandinthenameofclaimantandsimilarextensive   holdingstoits_lliili_Ԁside,theinferencearisesthatthedisputedareaistheindividuallyownedland   ofclaimant_Lautele_. (hCh݌ p Ќ      Uj  Theinferencedoesnotfollowandthe_arglAment_Ԁ_completelyoverlooks_Ԁthelawonthematter.The \ caseshadearlyestablished,totheextentthatitistritelawintheterritory,thatSamoanfamilies H acquiretitletobushlandthroughfirstoccupancyanduse,coupledwithclaimtoownership. 4 However,amereclaimtoownershipofbushlanddoesnotestablishtitletoit._Soliai_Ԁv.La~_afua_.2  p _A.S.R._Ԁ436(1949).Inthematterbeforeus,thereisjustnoroomfortheinferencecontended  \ whenthereisactualevidencethattheobjectors(_Fao_Ԁandhisfamily)cleared,occupied,planted, H andassertedownershipbythesortofdevelopmentoutlinedabove.Thustheargumentbycounsel 4 inthecircumstancesisatbestnomorethanamereclaimtoownership. Ujpj݌   Ќ  [9ASR2d46]     [9ASR2d47]       Mo  occupationoftheclearedlandhasalsobeensubstantial.IntheCourt'sview,_Lautele_Ԁhadfailedto  proveonthepreponderanceoftheevidencethathehadinfactsubstantiallyclearedtheareain  disputefrombushland.Healsofailedinhisevidenceto_ShoW_Ԁactualandsubstantialcultivation l althoughhealludedtoplantingcertainrowsofcoconutsasboundarymarkers,andcertainlyhe X  madeaverypoorshowingof_continuoUS_Ԁoccupationandusebyattemptingtoexplainthe D! adversefactof_Fao_'spresenceasbeingthroughhispermission.Hisgeneralclaimstohavebeen 0"  thefirsttoclearlandsintheareacoupledwithhissuccessinhavingobtainedregistrationtoa #l! largepartofthelandsinthearea,donotestablishaclaiminindividualownership._Lautele_'soffer $X" forregistrationmustthereforebedeniedin_totO_, Moho݌ $D # Ќ      [t  Wedofindthattheevidencepreponderatesinfavorof_Fao_'sclaimtocommunalownership.We %0!$ are_mindfulof_ԀtheadverseeffectourconclusionshaveonMrs._Olotoa_,howevershemustlook,in &"% termsofrelief,to_Lautele_Ԁfromwhomherrightsderive.Shecandidlyadmittedrisktakinginher '#& landdealingswithclaimant.Shegavepurchasemoneyupfrontwithouttheleastconcernfora (#' titlesearchandconsequentlyherlasttransactionhasproventobethe"gamble"whichhasnot )$( paidoff, [tvt݌ |*%) Ќ      w  Ontheforegoing,itisthejudgmentoftheCourtthatthelandsdelineatedinredinExhibit"1", h+&* andmoreparticularlydescribedinDrawingNo.431887,arethecommunalfamilylandofthe T,'+ _Lealaimatafao_Ԁfamilyof_Iliili_.TheTerritorialRegistrarmayregisteraccordingly,The_applica_Ԅ_tion_ @-(, by_Lautele_Ԁforregistrationisdenied.ItisSoOrdered, ww݌  Ќ      Jz  ********* Jzez݌  Ќ  [9ASR2d48]    [9ASR2d49]  t     {  Counsel:ForPlaintiff,_Togiola_Ԁ_T.A._Ԁ_Tulafono_ԀForDefendant,Frank_Swett_Ԁ {,{݌ ` Ќ      M|  Defendantacquiredagovernmentroadconstructioncontractin_Manu'a_Ԁandhiredplaintiffasa L  truckdriveratthewageof$5.00perhour,Plaintiffnowsuesthedefendantforunpaidwages, 8  claimingthatheneverreceivedapaycheckthroughouthisperiodofemployment,Inaddition, $ t plaintiffcontendsthatdefendant'sfailuretopaywas"wilful"andthereforealsoseeks"liquidated  ` damages"inanamountequaltohisclaimforunpaidwagespursuantto_A.S.C.A._Ԁsection  L  32.0340. M|h|݌  8  Ќ      F  Defendantdoesnotdisputeowingplaintiffbackwages.Hedoescontesttheamountofplaintiff's $  claimtoactualhoursworkedasbeinginflated.Hefurtherdenieswilfulnessinnonpaymentof   wages,claimingthatanongoingdisputeontheroadcontractwiththegovernmenthascat~sedhis   venturetolosemoneyandnotfulfillexpectations.Heexpectstosatisfyhisobligationstoplaintiff   afterthegovernmentreleasestohimsome$28,000in_retentions_,Defendantalsoclaimstohave   madeplaintiffcashadvancesatvarioustimes_totalling_Ԁsome$590.00. Fa݌ p Ќ        Plaintiffcalculateshiswagesdueasbeingintheamountof$5,765,ofwhichthesumof$1,650is \ saidtobeovertimecompensation.Defendant'sfigures,however,showplaintiffasbeingowed H $1,876.50,whichfigurehastakenintoaccounttheallegedcashadvances. ݌ 4 Ќ      0  PlaintifftestifiedthathewashiredbydefendanttocommenceworkonMay11,1987andwas  p immediatelyputtowork_halAling_Ԁmaterial.Hetestifiedthatafewdaysafterward,onMay15,  \ 1987,hewasrelocatedto_Manu'a_Ԁwithdefendant'sequipment.Helargelyremainedin_Manu'a_ H untilOctober2,1987whenemploymentceased. 0K݌ 4 Ќ        Evidenceofworkhourssubmittedbyplaintiffwasintheformofa1987calendaruponwhich   plaintiffmadenotationsforeachdayoftheweek,Inthesenotationshehassetdownhours,which   heclaimsweretimeatwork,aswellasashortlogofhisactivitiesandlocationforthatday,  Plaintiffclaimsthathehaskeptacalendarofhisworkactivitiesashehasalwaysdonewhen ݌  Ќ  [9ASR2d50]    [9ASR2d51]  l       Furthermore,andmindfulofplaintiff'sexaggeratedrecordofhishours,thedifferencebetweenthe X  timekeeper'slogofhoursandthatofplaintiff'swassimplytoogreattopermit_IJ.S_Ԁtoconclude D! favorablyonthereliabilityofthetimekeeper'srecords.Whendefendantattemptedtoexplainthe 0"  discrepancy,he_defensivelyoffered_Ԁthatitwastheparticularemployee'sdutytoreconcilehours #l! withthetimekeeperiftheemployeefelttherewasindeedadiscrepancy.Defendantputthisdown $X" to"normalbusinesspractice." ݌ $D # Ќ        Afternearlyfivemonthsofemploymentwithnothingbutarecurringpromiseofcompensation, %0!$ theneedtoreconcilehourswillnothavearisenastheemployeewouldnotknowwhathoursare &"% beingpaidbytheemployer.Thisisthekindofinformationemployeesareregularlygivenontheir '#& payrollchecksorwagestatements,Further,plaintifftestifiedthattherewasnoestablisheddaily (#' practicewherebytheyreportedtoatimekeeperorpunchclock,andthusweassumethatthe )$( possibilityofreconcilinghourswasnotatallencouragedinpractice. 6݌ |*%) Ќ        Inourjudgment,theevidencepreponderatesinfavorofthoseregularlykeptentriesofplaintiff h+&* whicharefreeofthecriticismwenotedabove.Wefindplaintiffwasemployedbydefendantfrom T,'+ May11,1987toOctober2,1987.Duringthatperiodofemploymentplaintiffhadaccumulated @-(, thefollowingunpaidnumberofworkhours: 3݌  Ќ        RegularHours:OvertimeHours:TotalWages ,݌  Ќ  6250  x$5.000 (#(#=0 (# (#$3,125.00(#(# 1150  x$7.500 (#(#=0 (# (#$862.50t(#(#    `  =0  $3,987.50`(#(#     ْ  Wenextreachthequestionof"liquidateddamages."Plaintiffseekstorecoverdoubletheamount L  ofunpaidwages,basinghiscauseofactionontheprovisionsof_A.S.C.A._Ԁsection32.0340.This 8  enactmentprovides,interalia,forpunitivedamagesagainstanemployerwho"wilfully"violates $ t theprovisionsofsections32.0320and32.0323.Suchdamagesshallbeforanadditionalequal  ` amountofunpaidcompensationduetheemployeeinaccordancewiththesaidsections32.0320  L  and32.0323.Theformersectionprovidesforpaymentofminimumwagesattherateof70cents  8  anhour;however,theenactmentbyitstermsdoesnotapplytoemployeescoveredbytheMerit $  SystemLawandFederalMinimumWageScheduleestablishedbythe ْ݌   Ќ  [9ASR2d52]     [9ASR2d53]          circumstanceswereotherthanthosecoveredbythefederalwageschedule.29_C.F.R._Ԁsection   697.1(e)establishesa"Constructionindustry"whichisdefinedtoincludeall"construction, p reconstruction,structuralrenovationanddemolition,onpublicorprivateaccount,ofbuildings, \ housing,highwaysandstreets,catchments,dams,andanyotherstructure."29_C.F.R._Ԁ H 697.1(e)(2)(1988),Withoutanyshowingtothecontrary,thisclassificationwouldseemtocover 4 thefactualcircumstancesofemploymentbeforetheCourt,andaccordinglyplaintiff'sclaimis  p outsidetheambitofsection32.0320. 5݌  \ Ќ        Thesecondaspectoftheclaimisdamagesforwilfulfailuretopayovertimerateswhicharesetby H section32.0323atoneandonehalftimestheemployee'sordinaryrateofpaywhetherthatrate 4 iscontractuallydeterminedornot.However,reliefhereunderdoesnotmerelyarisewithnon   paymentofovertimerates.Theemployer'sfailuretopaymustbe"wilful."Inthisregard,   defendanttestifiedthathehasbeenunabletopayhisemployeesbecauseofearlydisputesarising  withthegovernmentonthe_roading_Ԁcontract.Thisinvolvedmoneyconsumingworkchangesfrom  whichdefendantclaimsheneverrecoveredandeventuallyresultedinamutualagreementto  terminatethecontract.Thedefendant'spleadingsadmitliabilityforthepaymentofovertimerates, l althoughhehascontestedthenumberof_hol_~_rs_Ԁclaimedbyplaintiff.Inthelightofour X  conclusionsabove,thatobjectionbydefendanthasnotproventobewithoutmerit.Moreover, D! plaintiffhasnotproducedevidencetocontradictdefendant'sassertedinabilitytopay. ݌ 0"  Ќ      P  Weconcludedefendant. Pk݌ #l! Ќ      ڠ  againstwilfulnessonthepartof ڠ݌ $X" Ќ      o  Withregardtotheallegedadvancesbydefendanttoplaintiff,wefindthatdefendanthasmadean $D # insufficientshowing.WhenaskedbytheCourtifdefendantkeptdocumentaryrecordingsofsuch %0!$ advances,defendantmentionedacertainbookkeptbyhispartnerintheventure.Thisreported &"% recordwasorderedtobeproducedbydefendantandourreviewofthesamefailedtosustain '#& defendant'stestimony.Wedisallowtheclaimedoffset. o݌ (#' Ќ        [9ASR2d54]  ݌ )$( Ќ  [9ASR2d55]  |*%)       establishedresidencyinthenewdistrictphysicalpresence._A.S.C.A._Ԁ6.0212. ݌ h+&* Ќ        bymere ݌ T,'+ Ќ        Avoterwhoisphysicallypresentinaresidence,butfailstogainlegalthatdistrictbecausehe @-(, lackstheestablishinghispermanentdwellingretainshispreviouslegalresidencethere._A.S.C.A._  6.0212. ݌  Ќ        newplaceofresidenceinintentionofplacethere,andmayvote ݌  Ќ      H  BeforeREES,AssociateJustice,_TOGAFAU_,ActingAssociateJustice,_LUALEMAGA_, t AssociateJudge,and_AFUOLA_,AssociateJudge. Hc݌ ` Ќ        Counsel:ForAppellant,CharlesAla\_ilima_ԀForAppellees,CarolineB._Crenna_,AssistantAttorney L  General Ʃ݌ 8  Ќ      ڪ  REES,J.: ڪ݌ $ t Ќ      X  ThisisanappealfromthedecisionoftheBoardofRegistrationthatappellee_Liki_ԀReedisa  ` qualifiedelectorinHouseofRepresentativesDistrict#8,comprisingthevillageof_Fagatogo_.On  L  November8,1988,ReedwasreelectedRepresentativeforDistrict8.Appellantwastheonly  8  losingcandidate.AlthoughtheappealseeksonlyadeclarationthatReedwasineligibletovotein $  thedistrictandhisremovalfromthelistofvoters,weassumetheintendedeffectoftheappealis   tosecurethecertificationofappellantasthewinneroftheelection. Xs݌   Ќ        Thefactsareundisputed.Reedgrewupin_Fagatogo_Ԁandlivedthereuntilhewentawaytocollege   intheUnitedStates.Uponhisreturnlivedin_Fagatogo_Ԁfortwoyearsandthenmovedahousein   _Gataivai_,whichisoutsideDistrictReedhadacquiredthehouse,orashareinit,through p inheritancein1962.Hisfamily,hischurch,andhisbusinessarein_Fagatogo_.Heservesthe_Lutu_ \ title,whichisappurtenantto_Fagatogo_Ԁalthoughitalsohaslandsin_Utulei_.isanofficerandactive H memberofthe_Fagatogo_Ԁ_Aumaga_.Hehasvotedin_Fagatogo_Ԁsince1974andhasnevervotedin 4 _Gataivai_.HewaselectedRepresentativefromDistrict8in1986andreelectedthisyear. ݌  p Ќ        heinto8. ݌  \ Ќ        He ݌ H Ќ      t  [9ASR2d56]  t݌ 4 Ќ  [9ASR2d57]          _TUIKA_Ԁ_TUIKA_,Jr.and_SU'A_ԀCARLSCHUSTER,Appellants 7݌   Ќ      #  v. #>݌  Ќ        CHIEFELECTIONOFFICER,BOARDOFREGISTRATION,and_FIAAOGA_Ԁ_SIATU'U_,  Appellees ݌  Ќ        HighCourtofAmericanSamoaAppellateDivision ɷ݌ l Ќ      Q  APNo.3488 Ql݌ X  Ќ      и  November23,1988 и݌ D! Ќ      U  Understatuterequiringelectionappealstobefiledby4:30p.m.ontheseventhcalendarday 0"  followingtheelection,courthadnojurisdictionoveranappealfiledat8:00p.m.ontheseventh #l! day._A.S.C.A._Ԁ6.0903(a). Up݌ $X" Ќ        Onewhovotesinaforeignelection,withouthavingbeennaturalizedasacitizenofaforeignstate $D # ortakinganoathofallegiancetosuchastate,doesnottherebylosehisstatusasaUnitedStates %0!$ citizenornational.8U.S.C.1481. ݌ &"% Ќ        OnewhovotesinaforeignelectiontherebyloseshislegalresidenceinAmericanSamoa. '#& _A.S.C.A._Ԁ6.0212(g). ݌ (#' Ќ        OnewholoseshislegalresidenceinAmericanSamoabyvotinginaforeignelection,butwho )$( returnstoAmericanSamoawiththeintentiontoremainpermanently,therebyreacquireshislegal |*%) residenceinAmericanSamoa._A.S.C.A._Ԁ6.0212(a). ݌ h+&* Ќ      U  Tobeeligibleforelectiontotheterritoriallegislature,onemusthavelivedintheterritoryfora T,'+ totalofatleastfiveyearsandhavebeenabonafideresidentofthedistrictfromwhichheis @-(, electedforatleastoneyearimmediatelyprecedinghiselection._Rev'd_ԀConst.Am.Samoaart.II  3(c). Up݌  Ќ      ]  [9ASR2d58]  ]x݌  Ќ  [9ASR2d59]  t       announcementoftheresults,andnosuchcasehasbeencited.  ݌ ` Ќ        Moreover,theappellantsknewwhattheyneededtoknowinordertofilethisappealthat L  _Siatu'u_ԀhadvotedinWesternSamoain1985,andthattheChiefElectionOfficerandtheBoardof 8  RegistrationneverthelessregardedhimasaresidentandaqualifiedvoterinDistrict7by $ t November14attheverylatest.ItistruethatappellantSchuster,whowassixteenvotesbehind  ` _Siatu'u_Ԁintheunofficialreturns,couldnotbeabsolutelysurethatthiscountwouldnotbechanged  L  whentheofficialresultswereannounced.Butthiswasnoreasontodelaybeyondthestatutory  8  deadlinethefilingofachallengeto_Siatu'u_'seligibilityasacandidate,whichdidnotdependinany $  wayonthevotecount. ݌   Ќ        Ifthiswereacaseinwhichtheappelleeshadmadeitimpossibleforappellantstomeetthe   deadlineif,forinstance,oneoftheappellantsweretheunofficialwinnerbuthadbeen   disqualifiedbytheChiefElectionOfficereightdaysaftertheelectionourdecisiononthisissue   wouldbeadifficultone.Onthepresentfacts,andintheabsenceofanycitedauthorityforthe p appellants'argumentthatastatutesuchas_A.S.C.A._Ԁ6.0903(a)shouldnotberegardedas \ mandatory,weholdthatitismandatoryandthatwehavenojurisdictiontoheartheappeal. ݌ H Ќ         Evenifwedidhavejurisdiction,however,appelleeswouldprevailonthemerits.Appellantsargue 4 that_Siatu'u_ԀlosthisstatusasaUnitedStatesnationalwhenheregisteredhismataititleinWestern  p Samoa,since(1)underthelawofWesternSamoaonlyaWesternSamoancitizencanholda  \ mataititleand(2)inordertobecomeaWesternSamoancitizenonemusttakeanoath H renouncingthecitizenshipofanyothernation.Thisproves,however,onlythat_Siatu'u_Ԁeithertook 4 anoathtorenouncehisstatusasaUnitedStatesnationalQAviolatedthelawofWesternSamoa