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   whenheregisteredhismataititle.Histestimonyisthathehasnevertakenanysuchoathandhas   neverbecomeacitizenofWesternSamoa.Ifnot,heappearstohaveviolatedsection8ofthe  Samoan  (݌  Ќ      e  [9ASR2d60]  e݌  Ќ  [9ASR2d61]  l        ThelistofvotersinWesternSamoaoutsidethetownshipofApiaconsistsentirelyofthelistof X  registeredmataititleholders.Appellee_Siatu'u_ԀtestifiedthathewasborninAmericanSamoaand D! haslivedhereallhislife;thathetookthetitlePesetainthevillageof_Pu'apu'a_ԀinWesternSamoa 0"  forfamilyreasonsunrelatedtoadesiretoparticipateinWesternSamoapolitics;butthatonone #l! ormoreoccasionshisfamilyinWesternSamoaprevaileduponhimtoexercisethevotingright $X" appurtenanttohisPesetatitle.AfterhedidsohereturnedtoAmericanSamoawherehe $D # continuedtolive,toparticipateincommunityaffairs,andtobeelectedseveraltimestothe %0!$ Legislature.ItisclearthathedidnotintendtorenouncehisrightsasaUnitedStatesnational.  (݌ &"% Ќ      S  When_Siatu'u_ԀvotedinWesternSamoahedidlosehis"residenceintheterritory."_A.S.C.A._Ԁ '#& 6.0212(g).However,hisresidencyrecommencedassoonashereturnedtoAmericanSamoawith (#' theintentiontoremainpermanently._A.S.C.A._Ԁ6.0212(a),Bythetimeofthe1988electionhe )$( hadresidedhereformorethanoneyearsincecastinghisvoteinWesternSamoain1985and |*%) returningtoAmericanSamoa,andsohewaseligibletorunfortheofficeofRepresentative.~ h+&* _Rev'd_ԀConst.Am.Samoaart.II3(c). Sn݌ T,'+ Ќ        Itisarguablethatafterofficiallylosinghisresidencein1985_Siatu'u_Ԁshouldhavebeenpurged @-(, fromthevotinglistandrequiredtoreregister.This,however,isirrelevanttowhetherhewasa  qualifiedcandidateforRepresentative;theterritorialconstitutiondoesnotrequirethatthe  candidatebearegisteredvoterforayearorevenaday,butonlythathe"havelivedinAmerican  Samoaforatotalofatleast5yearsandhavebeenabonafideresidentoftherepresentative t districtfromwhichheiselectedforatleast1yearnextprecedinghiselection."~art.II3(c) ` (emphasisadded)._Siatu'u_Ԁmettheseconditions. ݌ L  Ќ      i  WecannotemphasizetoostronglythattheCourtdoesnotconferitsapprovalontheactofvoting 8  inforeignelectionswhileattemptingtoretaintheadvantagesofcitizenshipinAmericanSamoa. $ t Perhapspenaltiesforsuchacts,including~thelossoftherighttovoteinAmericanSamoaforan  ` extendedperiodoftime,shouldbeprescribedby i݌  L  Ќ      o  [9ASR2d62]  o݌  8  Ќ  [9ASR2d63]  $        WherecontractspecifiedpaymentinUnitedStatesdollars,judgmentwouldbeintheamountof   UnitedStatesdollarsoriginallyagreedtobytheparties,plusinterestandcollectioncharges,   notwithstandingthedeclineoftheUnitedStatesdollarwithrespecttotheAustraliandollarduring   thetimebetweencontractandjudgment, 2݌   Ќ        BeforeREES,AssociateJustice,_TAUANU'U_,ChiefAssociateJudge,and_TUIAFONO_, p AssociateJudge.Counsel:ForPlaintiffs,Frank_Swett_ԀForDefendant,_Asaua_Ԁ_Fuimaono_Ԁ -݌ \ Ќ        Wefindthefactstobeasfollows: ݌ H Ќ      s  1)Themanagerofthedefendantcorporation,JungJunYong,wasemployeduntillate1986or 4 early1987byanotherlocalcompany,Nam'sWholesale.Hehaddonebusinesswiththeplaintiff  p corporationsonbehalfofNam's. s݌  \ Ќ        2)Arepresentativeoftheplaintiffcompanies,Mike_Gohil_,makesfrequenttripstoAmerican H Samoa.DuringsuchatripinOctoberof1986hemetwithJungJunYong.Incontemplationof 4 theformationofthedefendantcorporation(_KMST_)andofhisimpendingassociationwithit,Mr.   JungsignedastatementwrittenoutbyMr._Gohil_.Althoughthestatementisnoteasytodecipher,   wereaditasfollows:"Iagreetopayallbankchargesandinterestonafter30days20%per  month." ݌  Ќ        3)During1987thedefendantcorporationreceivedvariousshipmentsofmerchandisefromthe  plaintiffcompanies.Thoseprovedattrialtohavebeensenttoplaintiffwerebilledonthe l followingdatesatthefollowingamounts: ݌ X  Ќ        _Shantilal_ԀFiji: ݌ D! Ќ  Jan.10,19870 ` 0 ` (#` (#US$60000"  (# (# Mar.25,19870 ` 0 ` (#` (#US$6000#l! (# (# May25,19870 ` 0 ` (#` (#US$6000$X" (# (# July7,19870 ` 0 ` (#` (#US$960$D # (# (# Aug.25,19870 ` 0 ` (#` (#US$6000%0!$ (# (# Sept.24,19870 US$1440&"% (# (#  [9ASR2d64]  '#&  [9ASR2d65]  (#' Anditistheratespecifiedonmostoftheinvoices.) )$(       2)WenotefurtherthatbymakingacontractinAmericanSamoatoextendcreditattherateof20 |*%) percentperyearMr._Gohil_Ԁandtheplaintiffcompanieswouldappeartohavecommittedthe h+&* crimeofusury._A.S.C.A._Ԁ28.1510specifiesthatusuryisaClassAmisdemeanorpunishableby T,'+ uptoayearinprisonand,inaddition,byforfeituretothedebtoroftheentireamountofthedebt. @-(, Sincethedefendantinthecasesbeforeusdidnotpleadusuryasadefense,weneednotdecide  whetherthepenaltyofforfeitureappliesonlyafteracriminalconvictionorwhetheritcanbe  invokedbythedefendantinacivilaction. ݌  Ќ      D  3)The20percentratealsoviolatestheprovisionof_A.S.C.A._Ԁ28.1503thatintereston t businessloansshallnotexceed18percentannually.Plaintiffwillthereforehavejudgmentforpre ` judgmentinterestattherateof18percentonallshipmentsexceptthetwothatspecified81/2per L  centinterest. D_݌ 8  Ќ      O  4)Plaintiff_Shantilal_ԀAustraliaarguesthatinadditiontoprincipal,interest,andbankcharges, $ t defendantshouldbeliabletocompensateitfortheshiftintheexchangeratesince1987between  ` AustralianandUnitedStatesdollars.Plaintiffcouldhaveprotecteditselfagainsta  L  disadvantageousshiftintheexchangeratebyspecifyingthatpaymentwastobemadein  8  Australiandollars;insteaditspecifiedpaymentinAmericandollars.Twoofthe_Shantilal_ԀFiji $  contractsdidspecifypaymentinFijidollars,andjudgmentonthesecontractswillbeinthecurrent   UnitedStatesequivalentofthespecifiedamountinFijidollars.Judgmentonallothercontracts   willbeintheamountofUnitedStatesdollarsoriginallyagreedtobytheparties.Plaintiffseemsto   haveprovidedmorethanadequateprotectionforitselfbychargingdefendant20percentinterest   (enforceabletotheextentof18percent)whentheAustraliabankthroughwhompaymentwasto p bemadeischargingplaintiffonly8112percentontheseuncollectedamounts. Oj݌ \ Ќ        5)Otherthaninterest,theonlybankchargesproventohavebeenincurredbyplaintiffson H accountofdefendant'snonpaymentarecollectionfeesintheamountof$400inAustralian 4 dollars. ݌  p Ќ      7  [9ASR2d66]  7R݌  \ Ќ  [9ASR2d67]  H       CounselforplaintiffsshallsubmittotheCourtnolaterthanDecember8,1988,proposed 4 judgmentsonbehalfof_Shantilal_ԀAustraliaand_Shantilal_ԀFijiintherespectivetotalsoftheamounts   listedabove. ݌   Ќ        Itissoordered. ݌  Ќ         *********  (݌  Ќ        _OKETOPA_Ԁ_ATUATASI_,Appellant ݌  Ќ      Y  v. Yt݌ l Ќ        _MOAALI'ITELE_Ԁ_TU'UFULI_,WILLIAMSELLERS,andAMERICANSAMOA X  GOVERNMENT,Appellees ݌ D! Ќ        HighCourtofAmericanSamoaAppellateDivision ݌ 0"  Ќ        APNo.1788 ݌ #l! Ќ         December5,1988  $݌ $X" Ќ        Thatsomepeoplemaymisconstrueanotherwiseclear_jlAdgment_Ԁandsentence,andeventhata $D # clericalemployeeoftheparoleboarddidmisconstrueit,doesnotrenderthejudgmentand %0!$ sentencesovagueandambiguousastodeprivethepersonconvictedofdueprocessoflaw. ݌ &"% Ќ      Y  Thereisnoinconsistencyinsuspendinga"sentenceofimprisonment"whilesimultaneously '#& imposing"detention"asaconditionofprobation,wherestatutesusethesetermstodenotetwo (#' alternativemodesofsentencing._A.S.C.A._Ԁ46.2206,46.2301etseq. Yt݌ )$( Ќ      !  _Reincarceration_Ԁofaninadvertentlyreleasedprisonerdeniesdueprocessoflawonlywhere,under |*%) allthecircumstancesofthecase,_reincarceration_Ԁwouldcontravenefundamentalprinciplesof h+&* libertyandjustice. !<݌ T,'+ Ќ        _Reincarceration_Ԁofaninadvertentlyreleasedprisonerdidnotdenydueprocessoflawwherethe @-(, releasewasduetoaministerialmistakeandwhere,havingbeenreleasedforonlytwentyeight  days ݌  Ќ      P  [9ASR2d68]  Pk݌  Ќ  [9ASR2d69]  t       generalandearlierstatute.46.2206. ݌ ` Ќ        _A.S.C.A._Ԁ46.2203, ݌ L  Ќ      G  Whereprobationstatuteoriginallyprovidedthatprobationcouldbeimposedonlyincaseswhere 8  incarcerationwasnotnecessaryfortheprotectionofthepublic,andalsoprovidedthatabrief $ t periodofdetentioncouldbeimposedasaconditionofprobation,butstatutewaslateramended  ` toprovidethatsuchdetentioncouldbeimposedforuptofifteenyears,thelaterenactment  L  implicitlyamendedtheearlier;courtcouldthereforeimposedetentionasaconditionofprobation  8  notonlyforthepurposeofrehabilitation,butalsowhereincarcerationwasdeemednecessaryfor $  theprotectionofthepublic._A.S.C.A._Ԁ46.2203,46.2206. Gb݌   Ќ         Before_KRUSE_,ChiefJustice,KING*,ActingAssociateJustice,KAY**,ActingAssociate   Justice,_LUALEMAGA_,AssociateJudge,and_TUIAFONO_,AssociateJudge.   ݌   Ќ      `   Counsel:ForAppellant,_Aviata_Ԁ_Fa'alevao_ԀForAppellees,James_Doherty_,AssistantAttorney   General ` { ݌ p Ќ         Per_Curiam_:   ݌ \ Ќ      H  Appellant,_Oketopa_Ԁ_Atuatasi_,wasconvictedonJuly22,1987,ofattemptedrapeandwas H sentencedtosevenyearsimprisonment.Executionofsentencewassuspendedandthesentencing 4 courtpursuantto_A.S.C.A._Ԁ46.2206placedtheappellantonprobationforaperiodoffive  p yearsonconditionthatheactuallyservetwoyearsand121daysintheTerritorialCorrectional  \ Facility.Itwasanexplicitconditionofthesentencethat Hc݌ H Ќ      #  *HonorableSamuelP.King,SeniorJudge,UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictof 4 Hawaii,servingbydesignationoftheSecretaryoftheInterior. #>݌   Ќ      F  **HonorableAlanC.Kay,DistrictJudge,UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofHawaii,   servingbydesignationoftheSecretaryoftheInterior. Fa݌  Ќ      i  [9ASR2d70]  i݌  Ќ  [9ASR2d71]   July25,1988,thetrialcourtinreaffirmingitsconclusionsfound:thattheParoleBoardhadno l jurisdictiontoorderappellant'sreleaseandthattheproceedingsbeforetheBoardwerehadonthe X  basisofaclericalerror;thatgiventheuniquehistoryandfunctionof_A.S.C.A._Ԁ46.2206,the D! sentencingcourthadcorrectlyappliedtheenactment;andthattheprocedurebywhichappellant 0"  was_reconfined_Ԁdidnotviolatedueprocess. #l!     p  Appellantstatesthefollowingforappellateconsideration: p݌ $X" Ќ        IssuesonAppeal :݌ $D # Ќ        A.Whetherthejudgmentandsentenceofthecriminalcourtis"vague,conflictingandtherefore %0!$ unconstitutionalforviolationofdueprocessoflaw."Appellant'sBrief,at3. ݌ &"% Ќ        B.Whetherappellant'sarrestand_reconfinement_Ԁforonemonthwithoutanyjudicialdetermination '#& violateddueprocess. ݌ (#' Ќ        C.Whetherthecourt's"reliance"upon_A.S.C.A._Ԁ46.2206was"erroneousandthereforeillegal. )$( ,.Appellant'sBrief,at3. ݌ |*%) Ќ      #  _Constitutionalitv_Ԁofthe_Jud_~entBelow #>݌ h+&* Ќ        Appellantclaimsthatthe"vaguenessandambiguityoftheJudgmentandSentence..drewoffnot T,'+ onlytheAppellanthimselfandtheprisonauthoritiestoadifferentconstructionand @-(, understanding,itlikewiseconstrued[sic]bytheParoleBoardandtheirlegaladvisorfromthe  OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral."Appellant'sBrief,at5.Appellantthenquotesfromanumberof  differentcasesdealingwithambiguoussentencestosupporthisargument. ݌  Ќ        Weneednotbelaborappellant'sfirstpointofcontention.Itseemstosuggestthatjustbecause~ t handfulofindividualsmaymisconstrueanotherwiseclearjudgmentandsentence,itnecessarily ` followsthatthejudgmentandsentenceisvagueandambiguouswithoutfurtherado.Thelogical L  consequenceofthisargumentwouldbetoraisetheperpetuationofacareless_misconstruc_Ԅ_tion_ 8  toconstitutionalproportions.Indeedtheerror,ormisreading,wasattributablebelowtoa ݌ $ t Ќ      a!  [9ASR2d72]  a!|!݌  ` Ќ  [9ASR2d73]   L       "  custodyandthenworriesaboutahearing.Accordingtotestimonybelow,appellantwasstill  8  regardedasadangertothecommunitybytheAssistantAttorneyGeneralwhoadvisedthe $  Wardentoreinstatecustody.  "$"݌   Ќ      u#  Arguably,andnotwithstandingtheactualcourseofevents,itcouldbesaidthatwithdetention   beingaconditionofprobation,appellant'smistakenreleaseresultedinabreachofthat   probationarycondition.Thereforethesection46.2214hearing,asnowcontendedbyappellant,   shouldhavebeenappropriate. u##݌ p Ќ      Z%  Twoobservationsmaybemadeaboutthispossibility.Firstly,probationrevocationhearings \ providedbysection46.2214areconcernedwithwhethertheprobationerhimselfhasviolatedthe H conditionsofprobation.Theconsequencesofsuchviolationsincludepunitivemeasuressuchas 4 enlargingthetermandconditionsofprobationorevenrequiringthatanysentencepreviously  p givenbeexecuted.~_A.S.C.A._Ԁ46.2209.Obviously,suchpunitivemeasureswouldbe  \ hopelesslyimproperinacasesuchasthiswhereaviolationofaprobationaryconditionwasnot H duetoanyfaultoftheprobationerhimselfbutarosethroughadministrativeoversight.Thereforeit 4 isverydoubtfulthattheapplicationofsection46.2214isintendedbytheenactmentinthese   circumstances.Secondly,eveniftheprocedurewherebyappellantwastakenintocustodyfell   shortofdueprocess,weareincompleteagreementwiththetrialdivisionthatimmediatenoticeto  hiscounselofrecordaswellasaplenaryhearingimmediatelyuponhisrequestwouldseemtobe  curativeofanydefectoratleastrendersuchdefectmoot. Z%u%݌  Ќ       +  Whilenotarguedinhisbrief,appellantatoralargumentfurthercontendedthatthegovernment l havingoncereleasedhimmaynotnow_reincarcerate_Ԁhim.Headvancestwosomewhatrelated X  theoriestojustifythisassertion.First,appellantarguesthattoreturnhimtotheCorrectional D! Facilitywouldviolatehissubstantiverightsofdueprocess.Second,hemaintainsthatthe 0"  governmentisequitably_estopped_Ԁfromarguingthathewasineligibleforparole.Withboththese #l! argumentswedisagree.  +;+݌ $X" Ќ      '.  Thetrialcourthaddetermined,withtheagreementofthegovernment,thatappellantwas '.B.݌ $D # Ќ      .  [9ASR2d74]  ./݌ %0!$ Ќ  [9ASR2d75]  &"%     /  separateoccasionsatvariouslevelsoftheparolebureaucracy,eachtimesettingapresumptive '#& paroledate.Johnson,supra,682F.2dat870.Thusthegovernment'sactioninreleasinghimtruly (#' reachedthelevelofgrossnegligence.Bycontrast,inGreen,theprisonerwasservingconcurrent )$( federalandstateprisontermsinastateprison.Whenhebecameeligibleforparoleonthestate |*%) charge,astateofficialinquiredoftheUnitedStatesMarshal'sofficewhethera"hold"shouldbe h+&* placedonhim.Green,supra,732F,2dat1398.Becauseof"inadvertenceofamarshal.[which] T,'+ amountstomerenegligenceatworst"the_detainer_ԀwasneverplacedandGreenwasparoled.1Q. @-(, at1399.Clearly,thefactsofthiscasebeforeusseemmoresimilartothoseofGreenthanthe  factsinJohnson. //݌  Ќ      3  Thecourtshavealsolookedtothedegreeofaformerprisoner'sreintegrationintosocietyand  howmuch_reimprisonment_Ԁwoulddisruptthatreintegrationindeterminingwhetherfundamental t principlesoflibertyandjusticewouldbeviolatedby_reincarceration_.UnitedStatesv.Merritt,478 ` _F.Supp_.804,808(_D.D.C._Ԁ1979).SeealsoJohnson,supra,682F.2dat873n.3.InMerritt,a L  paroleefromastateprisonhadbeenreleasedforalmostthreeyearsbeforebeingarrestedona 8  federalchargewhosetermwassupposedtohaverunfollowingthestateterm.Duringthosethree $ t years,hehadmarried,hadonechildandadoptedanother,becomepartownerofconstruction  ` company,andbeenanactivememberofbothhislocalchurchandaprisonministry.Merritt,supra  L  478_F.Supp_.at806,808.Bycontrastappellantherehadbeenreleasedforbuttwentyeightdays  8  beforebeing_arrested.l_ԀTrue,hehadapparentlyreturnedtohisfamilyandwasstayingwiththem. $  Butnothingintherecordindicatesthathehadmadesuchareadjustmenttosocietythatremoving   himfromit 34݌   Ќ      (:  1.Wehaveseriousdoubtswhetherareleaseofsuchshortdurationcould~leadtoasuccessful   dueprocesschallengeto_reincarceration_.However,weneednotdecidethatquestiontoday.00   [_E]ach_Ԁcaseinthisareaofthelawmustbedecidedonitsownfacts,00Merritt,supra,478 p _F.Supp_.at808n.14,andonthesefactsappellanthasshownnobasisforrelief. (:C:݌ \ Ќ  [9ASR2d76]  H  [9ASR2d77]  4     <  governmentiftwoconditionsaremet."[_T]he_Ԁgovernment'swrongfulconductmustthreaten'to  p workaseriousinjustice'andthepublic'sinterestmustnot'beundulydamagedbytheimposition  \ ofestoppel."'~(quotingUnitedStatesv.LazyFCRanch,481F.2d985,989(9thCir.1973)).As H weexplainedabove,thereisnoevidencethata"seriousinjustice"willbeoccasionedbyre 4 incarceratingappellant.Moreover,wecannotsaythatthepublic'sinterestwouldremain   unharmedif_Atuatasi_Ԁweresetfree.Afterall,hewassentencedtodetentionasaconditionof   probationpreciselybecausethetrialcourtdeterminedthatheposedtoogreatadangertothe  communityifhewereeligibleforworkreleaseorsimilarearlyreleaseprograms.Ontheother  hand,theParoleBoard'sdecisiontoreleaseappellantafterninemonthscannotbetakenasan  indicationthat_that_Ԁdangerhaddissipated.Notonlywasithadwithoutjurisdiction,itreflecteda l certaindegreeofcarelessnesswhichpromptedotheragenciesoftheexecutivebranchto X  affirmativelyseekappellant's_reconfinement_.Moreover,althoughthetimethat_Atuatasi_Ԁspent D! outsidetheCorrectionalFacilitywas_concededly_Ԁwithoutanyincidentsofviolence,itwastoo 0"  brieftoallowustosaythatthepublicinterestwouldnotbe",undulydamaged'"byhisrelease. <=݌ #l! Ќ      UD  _ADDlicabilitv_ԀoftheParoleStatute UDpD݌ $X" Ќ       E  Inarguingthatthesentencingcourt's"reliance"upon_A.S.C.A._Ԁ46.2206was"erroneousand $D # thereforeillegal,"appellantfirstcontendsthatthetrialcourtshouldhavesentencedhimtoa %0!$ "straightsentence"ratherthansuspendinghissentenceandputtinghimonprobationonthe &"% conditionthatheservetwoyearsand121daysinprison.Appellantfeelsthatthecourtby '#& invokingtheprobationalternative,asopposedtostraightsentencing,hadachievedtheeffectof (#' "cuttingofftheearlyrelease[ofappellant]onparole."Appellant'sBrief,at11.  E'E݌ )$( Ќ      7H  Thisclaimisclearlyerroneous.Section44.2206providesthatwhenprobationisgranted,the |*%) courtmaydesignate"detentioninanappropriateinstitution."Forfelonies,theperiodofdetention h+&* maynotexceed"onethirdofthemaximumprescribedtermofimprisonmentforthecrimeof T,'+ whichthedefendanthasbeenconvicted."_A.S.C.A._Ԁ46.2206(2).Sinceappellantwouldhave 7HRH݌ @-(, Ќ  [9ASR2d78]    [9ASR2d79]       J  exceeding1year,thecourtinappropriatecasesmaynowimpose,asaconditionofprobation,a  detentionperiodofupto15years.Thechange,asnotedbythecourtbelow,isdramaticandwe t agreethatithasthereforegiventheprobationstatuteanentirelydifferentpurpose.Theconflict ` betweentheprovisionsreferredtoabovewascorrectlyaddressedbelow.Thatis,the1987 L  amendmentsection46.2206(2)isaspecificandlaterenactmenttothatembodyingsection 8  46.2203.Thecardinalrulesofconstructionarethatthegeneralgiveswaytothespecificandthat $ t theearlierisimplicitlyamendedprotantobythelatterwhereanobviousconflictisapparent.This  ` isnottosaythatintheappropriatecasethesentencingcourtmaynolongerutilizetheprobation  L  optioninthemanneroriginallyenvisagedwiththesection46.2203recitals.Onthecontrary,the  8  recitalsarenolongerdeemedasfactualassumptionsofgeneralapplicationineveryprobation $  matter.Therewillbeoccasionswhereadefendantisnotconsideredadangertosocietynor   appropriateforimprisonmentexceptforshockvaluedetention.Thereisnow,inaddition,a   probationarypurposeavailableforexactlytheoppositereasons. JJ݌   Ќ      P  Forthereasonsgivenabove,weaffirm. PQ݌   Ќ      Q  ********* QQ݌ p Ќ      R  DONHARDY_dba_ԀHARDYCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANY,Plaintiff R1R݌ \ Ќ      R  v. RR݌ H Ќ      SS  MARTINANDERSON_dba_ԀPAGOPLAZA,Defendant SSnS݌ 4 Ќ      T  HighCourtofAmericanSamoaTrialDivision T+T݌  p Ќ      T  CANo.888 TT݌  \ Ќ      -U  December6,1988 -UHU݌ H Ќ      U  Wherepartytoconstructioncontractusesnonconformingmaterials,courtisordinarilyfacedwith 4 thequestionwhetherthelackofconformitywassoseriousastobarnotonlyrecoveryonthe UU݌   Ќ      V  [9ASR2d80]  VW݌   Ќ  [9ASR2d81]       W  wellrecognizedindustrystandarddefiningpressuretreatment;(2)thatplaintiffknewofthis  standard;(3)thatplaintiffusedwoodthatdidnotmeettheindustrystandard;and(4)thatplaintiff  usedthiswoodknowingitdidnotmeettheindustrystandard. WW݌ l Ќ      ?Y  Exactlywhatlumbertheplaintiffdiduseislessclear.Thepreponderanceoftheevidence, X  however,istotheeffectthatplaintiffpurchasedsomeuntreatedwoodthathadbecomeavailable D! afterbeingfraudulentlyormistakenlyimportedbyanothercontractor.Althoughthislumberwas 0"  thinlycoatedwithasubstancesimilartothatusedforpressuretreatment,itfellfarshortofthe #l! industrystandardandwasrejectedbyitsintendedrecipient.Theuntreatedlumberwasthen $X" consignedto_Lumana'i_ԀDevelopmentCorporation,whichadvertiseditforsaleatadiscount.It $D # wasspecificallyadvertisedasuntreatedlumber.managerof_Lumana'i_Ԁtestifiedthatplaintiff %0!$ purchasedaquantityofthisuntreatedlumberataboutthetimehewasbeginningworkon &"% defendant'sroof. ?YZY݌ '#& Ќ      ]  The ]]݌ (#' Ќ      ^  TheroofwasmoreorlesscompletedbyMarchof1987.Defendant'sarchitectinspecteditand )$( reportedtodefendantonApril1,1987,alistofnineteenwaysinwhichthearchitectbelievedthe |*%) workdidnotcomplywiththespecifications.Oneitemonthelistwasthat"[_i]t_Ԁappearsthat h+&* untreatedlumberwasusedratherthanpressuretreatedasspecified."(Weinferthatthiswas T,'+ becausethelumber,whichhadnotthenbeenthoroughlypainted,didnotbearthesurface @-(, markingsthatindicateithadbeenpressuretreated.Testslaterperformedonthewoodconfirmed  thatithadnotbeenpressuretreatedtotheindustrystandard.Theresultsweremoreconsistent  withsurfacebrushingorsprayingofachemicalformula,suchashadbeendonetothelumber  plaintiffpurchasedfrom_Lumana'i_.) ^)^݌ t Ќ      {b  Plaintiffattemptedtocorrectmostofhiserrors,andonJuly1,1987,thearchitectreportedthat ` nofurthercorrectionsshouldberequiredif(1)theweldsaffixingcertainplatestosteelcolumns L  werecleaned,primed,andrepainted,and(2)"thereceiptsforthetreatedlumber[were]received. 8   [9ASR2d82]  {bb݌ $ t Ќ  [9ASR2d83]   `     d  himithadnotbeenpressuretreatedandthathecouldnotprovideacertificatesayingitwas. dd݌  L  Ќ      ]e  Attrialplaintiffcontinuedtomaintainthathehadusedonlythepressuretreatedlumber  8  purchasedfromtheUnitedStates,nottheuntreatedlumberfrom_Lumana'i_,ondefendant'sroof. $  Thisassertionisinconsistentwiththeinspectingarchitect'sreportthatthelumberdidnotlook   likepressuretreatedlumber;withthetestresultsshowingthatfiverandomlyboredsamplesofthe   woodwerenotpressuretreated;withthealterationbyplaintifforhiswife/bookkeeperofthedate   ononeoftheinvoicesforthepressuretreatedwoodplaintiffdidpurchase;withplaintiff's   presentationofthealteredinvoicetodefendant(andlatertotheCourt)asevidencethathehad p usedpressuretreatedwoodontheroof;andwithplaintiff'sunsuccessfulattempttoprocurea \ certificateofpressuretreatmentfortheuntreated_Lumana'i_Ԁwood. ]exe݌ H Ќ      i  Hadplaintiffsimplyadmittedthathehadusednonconformingmaterials,theCourtwouldhave 4 beenfacedwiththequestionwhetherthelackofconformitywassoseriousastobarnotonly  p recoveryonthecontractbutalsoaquantum_meruit_Ԁrecoveryforthebenefitconferredonplaintiff.  \ Theroofappearstobesuitableforitsintendedpurposeexceptthatitwillnotlastnearlyaslong H asaroofbuiltwithpressuretreatedwood.Especiallyinlightofthefarhigherbidsbyother 4 contractors(whoprobablycalculatedtheirbidsbasedonthecostofdoingthejobright)the   evidencewouldpointtotheconclusionthatdefendanthasreceivedatleasta$3000roof. ij݌   Ќ      m  Anequitableremedysuchasquantum_meruit_,however,cannotbeclaimedbyaplaintiffwith  uncleanhands.Thecircumstancesofthiscasewouldcertainlysustainanindictmentforforgery.A  businessentityischargeablewiththeactsandintentionsoftheagentsinthiscaseeither  plaintiffhimselforhiswifewhoconductedthetransactiononwhichitbasesitsclaim.~ l DevelopmentBankv._Ilalio_,5A.S.R.2d110,124(1987). mm݌ X  Ќ      Up  Acontractingpartywhomateriallyandfraudulentlyaltersawritingwhichthelawprescribes D! eitherassufficientorasnecessaryevidenceofthecontractthatis,awriting Uppp݌ 0"  Ќ      q  [9ASR2d84]  qq݌ #l! Ќ  [9ASR2d85]  $X"     6r  _LUALEMAGA_ԀE._FAOA_,Plaintiff 6rQr݌ $D # Ќ      s  v. s!s݌ %0!$ Ќ      |s  _SOSENE_Ԁ_ASIFOA_Ԁand_LEFOTU_Ԁ_TUILESU_,Defendants |ss݌ &"% Ќ      t  _LUALEMAGA_ԀE._FAOA_Ԁfor_LUALEMAGA_ԀFAMILYandVILLAGE'OF_AASU_,and '#& _TUITELE_Ԁ_K.A._Ԁ_LE'OSO_ԀforVILLAGEOFLEONE,Plaintiffs/Objectors tt݌ (#' Ќ      v  v. vv݌ )$( Ќ      v  _AOLOAU_ԀVILLAGECOUNCIL,Defendant/Claimant vw݌ |*%) Ќ      w  A.U._FUlMAONO_ԀandtheVILLAGEOF_AOLOAU_,Plaintiffs ww݌ h+&* Ќ      x  v. xx݌ T,'+ Ќ      y  _TOLUAO_Ԁ_FETALAIGA_,Defendant y/y݌ @-(, Ќ      y  _TUILEFANO_Ԁ_VAELAA_,_TUIAGAMOA_,_TUIOLEMOTU_,and_TUITASI_Ԁfor"_AlGA_  _AITULAGI_,"_Intervenors_Ԁ yy݌  Ќ      {  LTNo.2986LTNo.4186LTNo.1287 {{݌  Ќ      X|  HighCourtofAmericanSamoaLand&TitlesDivision X|s|݌ t Ќ      |  December7,1988 |}݌ ` Ќ      }  Whetheralapseoftimebetweenthemakingofalandsurvey,withtheattendantnoticerequired L  bystatute,andofferofsurveyforregistrationwassogreatastopreventrivalclaimantsfrom 8  receivingfairnoticeisaquestionoffacttoberesolvedonacasebycasebasis._A.S.C.A._Ԁ $ t 37.0l02(c), }}݌  ` Ќ        BeforeREES,AssociateJustice. ݌  L  Ќ        Counsel:ForPlaintiffs,Albert_Mailo_Ԁ 3݌  8  Ќ  [9ASR2d86]  $   [9ASR2d87]          Webelievethequestionwhetheralapseoftimebetweentherequirednoticeandtheofferof   registrationpreventedapartyfromreceivingfairnoticeisaquestionoffacttoberesolvedona   casebycasebasis.Thelandregistrationstatuteitselfcontainsnotimelimit.In_Muagututia_Ԁthe   Courtappearstohavegoneontoconsiderthemeritsofthecase(i.e.,whoreallyownedthe p land)despiteitspreliminarystatementthatseventeenyearswastoolongtowaitbeforeoffering \ thesurveyforregistration.Inthecasenowbeforeus,the_intervenors_Ԁhaveinfactreceivednotice H oftheregistration.Therealdangeristhatatsomefuturetimeaclaimantwhodidnotreceive 4 noticewillarguethattheresultinthiscasedoesnotbindhim.Sincetheregistrationof_Aoloaufou_  p hasalreadybeenchallengedbytheprincipalchiefsorvillagecouncilsofeverysurroundingvillage,  \ allactingonbehalfoftheirrespectivevillages,thisappearsunlikely.3 6݌ H Ќ      b  Themotionforsummaryjudgmentisthereforedenied. b}݌ 4 Ќ         *********  %݌   Ќ        3Defendantalsoobjectstothestandingofthe_intervenors_Ԁonthegroundthat"therightsof   _Aitulagi_ԀandA.U._Fuimaono_ԀandtheVillageCouncilof_Aoloau_Ԁoverthelandinquestionhave  alreadybeendecidedin_Tuilefano_Ԁv.GovernmentofAmericanSamoa,4_A.S.R._Ԁ594[(1964)]."  Thisappearstobeanobjectiontothemeritsof_intervenors_'claimratherthantotheissue  presentedbythismotion.Ifdefendantwishestoraisethisissuebeforetrialitshouldberaisedbya l separatemotionforsummaryjudgment. ݌ X  Ќ      >  [9ASR2d88]  >Y݌ D! Ќ  [9ASR2d89]  0"        sheandherfamilyhadsuffereddamagesadequatelynotifiedthegovernmentoftheclaimsofher #l! minorchildren,sothatsuitbyminorsshouldnotbedismissedforfailuretoexhaustadministrative $X" remedies._A.S.C.A._Ԁ43.1205(a). ݌ $D # Ќ        Wherebusdriver'ssupervisorsubmittedaffidavitthatanyuseofbusotherthantransporting %0!$ childrentoschoolwasoutsidethescopeofdriver'semployment,butthereisevidencethat &"% passengersonschoolbusmayhavebeengovernmentemployeeswhohadbeenworkingonthe '#& bus,whetherdriverwaswithinscopeofemploymentisadisputedmaterialfactprecluding (#' summaryjudgment. ݌ )$( Ќ      Ϗ  Whenonepartyhasmovedforsummaryjudgmentbasedonaffidavits,depositions,oranswersto |*%) interrogatories,theotherpartymaynotrestontheallegationsinhispleadingsbutmustsetforth h+&* byaffidavit,deposition,oranswerstointerrogatoriesspecificfactsshowingthatthereisagenuine T,'+ issuefortrial._T.C.R.C.P_,Rule56(e). Ϗ݌ @-(, Ќ        Affidavitssettingforthfactstosupportoppositiontomotionforsummaryjudgmentmustbeby  onewhohaspersonalknowledgeofthefacts,notbyattorneywithnosuchpersonalknowledge,  _T.C.R.C.P._Ԁ56(e).  ݌  Ќ      {  Sinceissueofnegligencedependsonthereasonablenessofaparty'sconduct,itcannotordinarily t bedisposedofbysummaryjudgment. {݌ ` Ќ        BeforeREES,AssociateJustice,_TAUANU'U_,ChiefAssociateJudge,and_TUIAFONO_, L  AssociateJudge. ݌ 8  Ќ        Counsel: ˕݌ $ t Ќ      ,  ForPlaintiffs,_Togiola_Ԁ_T.A._Ԁ_Tulafono_ԀForDefendantsNationalPacificInsuranceand_Falemanu_,  ` RoyJ.D.Hall,Jr.ForDefendant_Tagaloa_,Charles_Ala'ilima_ԀForDefendantAmericanSamoa  L  Government.MartinR._Yerick_,AssistantAttorneyGeneralandRobertA._Dennison_.Assistant  8  AttorneyGeneral ,G݌ $  Ќ        OnMotionforSummaryJudgment: ݌   Ќ        _Fatu_ԀUtu,plaintiffs'decedent,wasapassengeronan"_aiga_"busownedbydefendant_Tua_Ԁ ݌   Ќ        [9ASR2d90]  ך݌   Ќ  [9ASR2d91]        d  astodecedent'swife,_Fogaolo_ԀUtu,2butdeniedastohischildren,_Faatasiga_ԀUtuand_Uigaese_ p Utu. d݌ \ Ќ        Thegovernmentcontendsthat_Fogaolo_ԀUtu'sclaimistimebarred.Weagree.Theapplicable H statuteoflimitationsprovidesthata"tortclaimagainstthegovernmentshallbeforeverbarred 4 unlessanactiononitisbegunwithin2yearsaftertheclaimaccrues."_A.S.C.A._Ԁ43.1204.The  p timeatwhichaclaim"accrues"wouldgenerallybeaquestionoffactrelatedtowhenaparty  \ discoveredorshouldhavediscoveredtheharmsoughttoberedressed.Heretherecanbeno H questionthatplaintiff_Fogaolo_Ԁdiscoveredherclaimagainstthe_A.S.G._ԀatleastbyAugust14, 4 1984,becausethatisthedateonwhichanadministrativeclaimagainstthegovernmentwasfiled.   Theplaintiffdidnotnamethe_A.S.G._Ԁasapartydefendantuntilshefiledanamendedcomplainton   April30,1987.Norhasplaintiffdemonstratedthattheamendedcomplaintoughttorelatebackto  thefilingoftheoriginalcomplaint.Thus,thetwoyearlimitationsperiodhadrunandsummary  judgmentwillbegrantedagainst_Fogaolo_'sclaim. ɜ݌  Ќ        2Thegovernmenthasquestionedwhether_Fogaolo_ԀUturemainedapartytothesuitafteran l amendedcomplaintomittedhernamefromthecasecaptionandfailedtomentionherinitsbody. X  MemoranduminSupportofMotionforSummaryJudgment,orforDismissal,Utuv.National D! PacificInsuranceCo.,CANo.9985,at3(April29,1988).Plaintiffscounterthattheamended 0"  complaintdidnotsupersedetheoriginalcomplaintandthus_Fogaolo_ԀUturemainsaparty.This #l! contentionissimplyincorrect.Anamendedcomplaintdoesnotmerelysupplementits $X" predecessor.Rather,itreplacesit.However,becausetheoriginalcomplaintgavenoticeto $D # defendantsthattheclaimsof_Fogaolo_ԀUtuwouldbeatissueinthisproceeding,wewould %0!$ entertainasecondmotiontoamendthecomplaintinordertoincludeherorherrepresentativeas &"% aparty.(Wenotethattherecordofarelatedproceedingindicatesthat_Fogaolo_ԀUtuhasdied. '#& PetitionforAppointmentofGuardianAdLitem,Inre_Uigaese_ԀUtu,PRNo.787(April27,1987). (#' Substitutionofherestateinherplacewouldthusseemtobeinorder.) ݌ )$( Ќ      Ϩ  [9ASR2d92]  Ϩ݌ |*%) Ќ  [9ASR2d93]  h+&*     w  The_A.S.G._Ԁhassetoutadditionalgroundsforsummaryjudgmentthatweneednotconsiderat T,'+ greatlength.Liabilityunderthe_G.T.L.A._Ԁ,dependsuponafindingthattheemployeeactedwithin @-(, thescopeofhisemployment.Thedefendantbusdriver'ssupervisorhassubmittedanaffidavit  statingthatanyuseofthebusasidefromtransportingchildrentoandfromschoolwas  unauthorizedandthusoutsidethescopeofhisemployment.Affidavitof_Luteru_Ԁ_Fiso_Ԁ,Utuv.  NationalPacificInsuranceCo.CANo.9985,at2(April29,1988).Leavingasidethequestion t whetherallunauthorizedactsarenecessarilyoutsidethescopeofone'semployment,3wehold ` thatplaintiff'sassertionthatthepassengersontheschoolbusweregovernmentemployeeswho L  hadbeenworkingonthebuscreatesafactualissueonthescopeofemploymentandprecludes 8  summaryjudgmentonthisissue.ResponsetoDefendants'SummaryJudgmentorDismissal,_Qiy_ $ t y.NationalPacificInsuranceCo.,CANo.9985,at4(May27,1988).4 w݌  ` Ќ      >  3Afterall,noemployeewouldbe"authorized"toactnegligently,yetclearlyanactofnegligence  L  maybe"withinthescope"ofone'semployment. >Y݌  8  Ќ      X  4Wenotethatplaintiff'sattorneysetforththisassertioninthe'.ResponsetoDefendants' $  SummaryJudgmentorDismissal."_T.C.R.C.P._Ԁ56(e)providesspecificallythatonceapartyhas   movedforsummaryjudgmentbasedonaffidavits,depositions,oranswerstointerrogatories,the   non_movant_Ԁmaynotmerelyrestontheallegationsinhispleadingsbutmustinturnsetforthby   affidavit,deposition,oranswerstointerrogatoriesspecificfactsbasedonpersonalknowledgethat   showthatthereisagenuineissuefortrial.Thisrulehasnotalwaysbeenenforcedinthepast.In p thiscaseweneednotdecidewhethertoenforceit,sincewetakejudicialnoticeoftherecordin \ AmericanSamoaGovernmentv.M~_lifai_,CRNo.7283,whichcontainssomeevidenceforthe H assertionsmadebyplaintiff'scounsel.However,theBarofAmericanSamoaisadvisedthat 4 henceforthapartyopposinganother'smotionforsummaryjudgmentwillnotbeallowedtorest  p uponhispleadingsortheassertionsoflawyerswhohavenopersonal Xs݌  \ Ќ        [9ASR2d94]  ݌ H Ќ  [9ASR2d95]  4       affidavitandanalysisrejectedintheimmediatelyprecedingparagraph,ittoomustbedenied. ݌   Ќ      m  Finally,defendant_Tua_Ԁ_Falemanu_Ԁmovesforsummaryjudgmentonthegroundthatanyinjuryto   Utudidnotoccurasaresultofanybreachofdutyforwhichheoughtbeheldresponsible.5He  contendsthatUtu'sinjurieswerecausedsolelybythecriminalactsofothers.However,wefind  thatagenuineissueofmaterialfactexistsabouttheactionsof_Falemanu_'semployee,thedriverof  the_aiga_Ԁbus.First.wefindmeritwithplaintiff'scontentionthatafactualissueexistsastowhether l thebusdriverattemptedtofleethesceneandabandonhispassengers,thusbreachingapotential X  dutyofprotectionowedthem.~PartialTranscriptofTrialProceedings,Testimonyof_Enesi_ D! _Ioramo_,AmericanSamoaGovernmentv._Mulifai_,CRNo.7283,at10(January6,1984). 0"  Moreover.thereissomeevidencetosuggestthat_Falemanu_'semployeecontributedtothefracas #l! bygoadingthepassengersoftheschoolbuson.Accordingtothetestimonyofoneofthe $X" assailants,the_aiga_Ԁbusdriversaidafterexitinghisvehicle:.'Heyprettysoonsomebodyisgoingto $D # gethurt."Id.at9.Evenifthisisnotviewedasinstigation,itbespeaksaconsciousnessofthe %0!$ potentialdangerinthesituationknowledgewhichdefendantnowdisclaimsbystatinghehadno &"% reasontoforeseecriminalactsbythepassengersoftheschoolbus. m݌ '#& Ќ      )  Forthereasonssetoutabove,wegrantinpartthemotionofthe_A.S.G._Ԁanddenythemotionsof (#' thethreeotherdefendants. )D݌ )$( Ќ      M  Itissoordered. Mh݌ |*%) Ќ        ********* ݌ h+&* Ќ      O  5BecausedefendantNationalPacificInsuranceCo.hasnotadvancedanygroundsforrelievingit T,'+ ofliabilityotherthanthoseadvancedby_Falemanu_,thedispositionof_Falemanu_'smotionfor @-(, summaryjudgmentwillnecessarilyapplytotheInsuranceCompanyaswell. Oj݌  Ќ  [9ASR2d96]    [9ASR2d97]       |  southwest,propertyof_Tua_Ԁtothenorth,propertyof_Leatumauga_Ԁtothesoutheast. |݌ t Ќ        and ݌ ` Ќ        (3)Membersofthe_Avegalio_Ԁfamily_nowoccupy_Ԁapieceoflandwhichtheycall_Vaosa_,andwhich L  theyclaimtobethesamelandtheyregisteredin1946. ݌ 8  Ќ      u  (4)Foratleastthirteenyears_Leatumauga_Ԁandmembersofhisfamilyhavealsobeenusingpartof $ t thetractwhichthe_Avegalios_Ԁcall_Vaosa_.Theyclaimthisispartoftheirlandcalled_Talifia'ai_. u݌  ` Ќ      A  (5)In1975_Leatumauga_Ԁattemptedtoregisterasurveyof_Talifia'ai_._Failautusi_Ԁ_Avegalio_Ԁobjected  L  onthegroundthatthesurveyencroachedon_Vaosa_.TheCourtinitiallyruledfor_Leatumauga_Ԁon  8  thegroundthataresurveyof_Vaosa_Ԁcommissionedby_Avegalio_Ԁhadfailedtocloseandtherefore $  couldnotbeconsideredasevidence. A\݌   Ќ      5  (6)Onrehearing,however,theCourtreverseditself,statingthat"[_a]rguments_Ԁatthehearing   indicatethat:(1)iftheplaintiffisallowedtoregisterland'_Talifia'ai_,'then'_Talifia'ai_'willencroach   upontheadjacentregisteredlandknownas'_Vaosa_';(2)theoldsurveyof'_Vaosa_'doesclose.   .Further,itappearsthatmattersinvolvingretracingandclosingofsurveyarereadilyexplainable p bycompetentevidence_Leatumauga_Ԁv.Ave~_alio_,LTNo.151475,DecisiononMotionforNew \ Trialat2.TheCourtappearstohavebeenreferringtocounsel'sargumentinhismotionfor H reconsiderationthatasightwasmissinginthe1930mapandthatthe1975surveyorhadmerely 4 addedthissightsothatthemapwouldclose.The1930mapdoesappeartobemissingasightthat  p iscontainedinthe1930descriptionoftheland. 5P݌  \ Ќ      `  (7)The1975casewassetforretrialbutwasdismissedwithoutprejudicewhen_Leatumauga_Ԁand H hiscounselfailedtoappearforthescheduledtrial. `{݌ 4 Ќ        (8)Asubsequentresurveycommissionedby_Avegalio_Ԁin1978doescloseanddoesconformtothe   writtendescriptionoftheregisteredland,withadjustmentsfrommagnetictotruenorth.The1978   mapshowsanoverlapbetweentheland_Vaosa_Ԁregisteredby_Failautusi_Ԁ_Avegalio_Ԁandhisbrothers  andsisters,andthelandcalled_Talifia'ai_Ԁwhich_Leatumauga_Ԁhadattemptedtoregisterin1975. ݌  Ќ        [9ASR2d98]  ݌  Ќ  [9ASR2d99]  l     2  Defendantsadmitthat_Avegalio_Ԁandhisbrothersandsistersdidregistersomelandcalled_Vaosa_Ԁin X  thevicinity,butsayitmustbeelsewhere,probablyfurtherbackfromtheroad. 2M݌ D! Ќ        AsidefromthetestimonyofMrs._Leatumauga_Ԁthatherhusband'sfamilyhaslongoccupiedthis 0"  land,theonlyevidenceadducedbydefendantsisthetestimonyof_Tuanatitau_Ԁ(whowasboth #l! counselandawitnessfor_Leatumauga_)thatasayoungmanheusedtobuypancakesfromaMrs. $X" _Ava_Ԁwholivedinahouseonthisland._Tuana'itau_ԀtestifiedthatMrs._Ava_Ԁwasnotrelatedto $D # _Avegalio_Ԁbutwasrelatedto_Nelesoni_.Hearguesthatthe_Avegalio_Ԁtractmustthereforebefurther %0!$ backfromtheroadthanthe_Nelesoni_Ԁhouse,whichwouldalsoputitfurtherbackthanthe &"% _Leatumauga_Ԁclaim. ݌ '#& Ќ      9  IftheCourtweretohold,however,that_Vaosa_Ԁmustbefurtherbackfromtheroadthan_Avegalio_ (#' saysitis,itwouldbenecessarytofindsomeplacefurtherbackfromtheroadboundedby(1)land )$( onceownedorclaimedby_Uo_Ԁonthesouth;(2)astone_wallon_Ԁthesouthwest;(3)anotherstone |*%) wall,atarightangletothefirst,onthenorthwest,withlandoccupiedby_Tuana'itau_Ԁontheother h+&* side;(4)landoccupiedby_Pele_Ԁslightlytotheeast;and(5)landoccupiedby_Leatumauga_Ԁonthe T,'+ southeast.Itseemshighlyunlikelythattherecouldbetwosuchplaces;_Tuanatitau_,whoisquite @-(, familiarwiththeneighborhood,wasunabletosuggestany. 9T݌  Ќ        Wemustconcludeeitherthat_Tuana'itau_Ԁwasmistakenabouttheexactlocationofthehousefrom  whichheonceboughtpancakes,orthatthereissomeexplanationforthesepurchasesotherthan  thisnotbeingthesamelandregisteredbythe_Avegalios_Ԁin1946. ݌ t Ќ        Accordingly,_Leatumauga_Ԁandmembersofhis_familyare_Ԁenjoinedfromgoingonanypartofthe ` landcalled_Vaosa_Ԁasdepictedinthe1978surveycommissionedby_Avegalio_Ԁ(DrawingNo.6040, L  act.6,1978)andfromdisturbingthepeacefulpossessionthereofbyRita,_Fa'asau_,_Failautusi_, 8  _Fuapopo_,_Su'e_,_Fiapito_,and_Veta_Ԁ_Avegalio_,theirheirs,successors,andassigns. ݌ $ t Ќ         ݌̌  issoordered.  L  *********  8   [9ASR2d100]  $   [9ASR2d101]          Aninstitutionalpartytolitigationischargeablewiththeknowledge,andresponsibleforthe   actions,ofitsagentswhoconductthetransactionsthatarethesubjectofthelitigation.  ݌   Ќ      0  Partywasnotentitledtorelieffromstipulatedjudgmentonthegroundofmutualorunilateral   mistake,where:(1)thepartywasaninstitutionwhichhadagreedtothestipulatedjudgmentafter p negotiationsduringwhichitwasadvisedbycounsel;(2)thebasisfortheallegedmistakewas \ that,atthetimeofthestipulation,itwaswronglyassumedthatcertainfundswerebeingkeptina H bankinaccordancewithacourtorder;(3)infact,thefundshadbeenwithdrawnandspentin 4 violationofthecourtorderbyanofficerofthepartyseekingrelieffromthejudgment;(4)the  p officerwastheparty'schiefagentforthesafekeepinganddispositionofthefunds,anda  \ participantinthenegotiationsleadinguptothestipulation;(5)thefundshadbeenspenton H expensesofthepartyseekingrelief;and(6)insupportofitsmotionforrelief,thepartysubmitted 4 anaffidavitfromacurrentofficerstatingthathispredecessorhadmisunderstoodthestipulation,   butsubmittedneitheranaffidavitfromthepreviousofficernoranexplanationofwhyitcouldnot   presentone._T.C.R.C.P._ԀRule60(b). 0K݌  Ќ        BeforeREES,AssociateJustice. ݌  Ќ        Counsel: ݌  Ќ        ForPlaintiff,RoyJ.D.Hall,Jr.ForDefendantCongregationalChristianChurchinAmerican l Samoa,JohnWardForDefendantCongregationalChristianChurchinSamoa,_Aviata_Ԁ_Fa'alevao_Ԁ ݌ X  Ќ        OnOrdertoShowCause,MotiontoDismissorintheAlternativeforJointLiability,andMotion D! forReliefFromJudgment: ݌ 0"  Ќ        I.FactsandProceduralHistory ݌ #l! Ќ        In1980theBankofHawaiifiledthisactionininterpleader.Asaresultofadisagreementbetween $X" thetwoprincipalparties,CongregationalChristianChurchinSamoa(_CCCS_)andCongregational $D # ChristianChurchinAmericanSamoa(_CCCAS_),the /݌ %0!$ Ќ        [9ASR2d102]  ݌ &"% Ќ  [9ASR2d103]  '#&       depositshallbepaidovertothe_CCCAS_."November30theCourtsignedthisjudgment. ݌ (#' Ќ      u  On u݌ )$( Ќ        Shortlythereafter_CCCAS_ԀpresentedtheBankofHawaiiwithacopyofthejudgmentand |*%) requestedthe$29,607plusinterest.TheBankrespondedthatthemoneywasnotintheBankand h+&* hadnotbeenthereforsometime.TheCourtlaterlearnedthatRev._Tulafono_Ԁhadmovedthe T,'+ moneyfromthe_Waikiki_ԀBranchtotheAmericanSamoabranchoftheBankofHawaii,andhad @-(, subsequentlywithdrawnandspentit.NopartydisputesRev._Tulafono_'scontentionthathespent  themoneyforchurch(_CCCS_)purposes. ݌  Ќ      R  II.TheOrdertoShowCause Rm݌  Ќ        Counselfor_CCCAS_ԀthenmovedforanordertoshowcausewhytheBankofHawaiishouldnot t beheldincontemptoftheCourt'sordersofJune27,1980,andNovember27,1987.Thefirstof ` theseordersprovidedthatthefundsin_Waikiki_Ԁweretobeincludedinthefundslitigatedandwere L  nottobedisbursedbyanyone.Thesecondorderprovidedthatthefundsshouldbedisbursedto 8  _CCCAS_Ԁinaccordancewiththestipulatedjudgment. ݌ $ t Ќ        III.TheBank'sMotiontoDismissorforJointLiability ݌  ` Ќ      _  TheBankhasmovedtodismisstheordertoshowcauseonseveralgrounds.TheBank'sprimary  L  contentionisthattheCourt'sJune26,1980,orderwasaclumsilydraftedattempttoorderthe  8  _Waikiki_ԀmoneydepositedintheregistryoftheCourt.Thiscontentioniscontrarytotheclear $  languageoftheorderandtothemostobviousinferencefromthecircumstancessurroundingit,It   isclearthattheCourtwishedthe_Waikiki_Ԁmoneytobe"included"inthe_interpleaded_Ԁfundsonlyin   thesensethatitwastobeleftrightwhereitwaspendingtheultimateoutcomeofthecase.   Indeed,in1984theCourtdeniedamotionby_CCCAS_Ԁtodepositthefundsintheregistryofthe   Court.Thedenialofsuchanordermakesnosenseifitwas,ascounselfortheBanknow p contends,exactlywhattheCourthadalreadyorderedbackin1980.TheCourtminutesreflect \ thatcounselfortheBank,aswellasfor_CCCAS_Ԁand_CCCS_,werepresentatthe1984hearing.It H isobviousthatallcounselagreedwiththeobviouspremiseofthe_CCCAS_Ԁmotion:thatthemoney 4 wasstillsafelyinthe_Waikiki_ԀbranchoftheBankofHawaii. _z݌  p Ќ        [9ASR2d104]  ݌  \ Ќ  [9ASR2d105]  H       JV.The_CCCS_ԀMotionforRelieffrom_JudQ:Jnent_Ԁ_CCCS_Ԁhasmovedforrelieffromthejudgment 4 awardingthe_Waikiki_Ԁfundsto_CCCAS_,onthegroundthatwhenthepartiesstipulatedtothis   judgmenttheydidsounderamutualmistake.Buttherewasnomutualmistake,Itistruethat   _CCCAS_Ԁandsomerepresentativesof_CCCS_ԀseemtohaveassumedthatRev._Tulafono_Ԁhadnot  violatedtheCourt'sorder.Rev._Tulafono_Ԁwasanofficerof_CCCS_,itschiefagentinconnection  withthesafekeepinganddispositionofthe_Waikiki_Ԁfunds,andaparticipantinthenegotiations  leadinguptothestipulation.Aninstitutionalpartyischargeablewiththeknowledge(and l responsiblefortheactions)oftheagentswhoconductthetransactionsthatbecomethesubjectof X  litigation,~DevelopmentBankv._Ilalio_,5A.S.R.2d110,124(1987)._CCCAS_Ԁistheonlyparty D! whocanclaimthebenefitofamistakewithregardtofactswithinthesoleknowledgeof_CCCS_ 0"  anditsofficers,and_CCCAS_Ԁdoesnotwishtodisturbthejudgment. ݌ #l! Ќ         _CCCS_ԀalsoarguesthatitagreedtotheNovember1987stipulationunderaunilateralmistake,not $X" understandingthatthestipulationwouldentitle_CCCAS_Ԁtothe_Waikiki_Ԁfunds.Theonlyevidence $D # forthisis(1)anaffidavitfromRev._Tulafono_,sayingthathehadalwaysregardedthe_Waikiki_ %0!$ funds(contrarytotheclearlanguageofthe1980order)asoutsidethescopeofthislitigation;and &"% (2)anaffidavitfromthecurrentGeneralSecretaryof_CCCS_Ԁstatingthat"mypredecessor '#& reviewed[theNovember1987stipulation]togetherwithmembersoftheCommitteethat (#' agreementandapproveditsexecutionbythencounselAi_tofele_ԀSunia,..butthat.'mypredecessor )$( wasnotfullyawareofallpreviousagreementsbetween_CCCS_Ԁand_CCCAS_Ԁwhenthestipulated |*%) agreementwasapproved."   ݌ h+&* Ќ        _CCCS_ԀsubmitsneitheranaffidavitfromtheGeneralSecretarywhoactuallyconductedthe T,'+ negotiations,andwhoseawareness_CCCS_Ԁwishestoputatissue,noranexplanationofwhyitis @-(, unabletopresentsuchanaffidavit.Counselfor_CCCAS_,ontheotherhand,submitsanaffidavit  thathespecifically_apprised_ԀthethenGeneralSecretarythatthe_Waikiki_Ԁfundsweresubjecttothe  stipulation.Moreover,thelanguageofthestipulationitselfclearlyandprominentlyreferstothe  _Waikiki_Ԁmoney. ݌ t Ќ      r  [9ASR2d106]  r݌ ` Ќ  [9ASR2d107]  L  S 8  SgXX?Bg_MOEA'I_Ԁ_UILIATA_,Plaintiff   #?XDEX?BG##XXX?XDEf#@XXXX   S 5  Y  @gX@X#g@g:#?Bgv. Y݌  5 Ќ  #?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE#@XXXX   S?  <   @gX@X#g@g#?Bg_UIVA_Ԁ_TE'O_Ԁand_SI'UFANUA_Ԁ_AITU_,Defendants ݌ ?  Ќ  #?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE;#@XXXX   S F    @gX@X#g@g#?Bg_ALAI'ASA_Ԁ_FlLlFlLl_,Plaintiff ݌   Ќ  #?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE2#@XXXX   SC   L  @gX@X#g@g-#?Bgv. L|݌ C  Ќ  #?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE#@XXXX   SM J    @gX@X#g@g~#?Bg_UIVA_Ԁ_TE'O_,Defendant ݌ M  Ќ  #?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE.#@XXXX   S T  @  @gX@X#g@g!#?Bg_MOEA'I_Ԁ_UILIATA_,Plaintiff @p݌   Ќ  #?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE#@XXXX   SQ   @gX@X#g@g#?Bgv. ݌ Q  Ќ  #?XDEX?B7##XXX?XDEy#@XXXX   S[X 9   @gX@X#g@g #?Bg_ALAI'A_Ԁ_FILIFlLI_,CHIEFSOF_FALENlU_,_SI'UFANUA_Ԁ_AITU_,and_TUlA'ANA_Ԁ_MOl_, [ Defendants 9 i ݌ _ Ќ  #?XDEX?B ##XXX?XDE #@XXXX   Sif "  @gX@X#g@g"#?BgLTNo.1385LTNo.4285LTNo.786 ""݌ i Ќ  #?XDEX?B###XXX?XDE]##@XXXX   Sp =$  @gX@X#g@g$#?BgHighCourtofAmericanSamoaLand&TitlesDivision =$m$݌  Ќ  #?XDEX?B$##XXX?XDE$#@XXXX   Sm %  @gX@X#g@g%#?BgDecember12,1988 %%݌ m Ќ  #?XDEX?B&##XXX?XDEP&#@XXXX   Sw$t '  @gX@X#g@g'#?BgPartyinlandcasewhoclaimedtobetheownerofallninetractsidentified w inanearlyleaseasbelongingtothechiefsofthevillage,andwhoattrial +{ hadclearlyattemptedtomisleadthecourtonanumberofmatters,wasnot / entitledtoanewtrialonthegroundthatnootherpartyhadpresenteda  historyofthelandthataccountedforallninetracts,sinceunderthe G circumstanceshiscredibilitywasweakenedratherthanstrengthenedbyhis K attempttoclaimallninetractsashisown. 'O'݌  Ќ  #?XDEX?Bn'##XXX?XDE'#@XXXX   S !Y  *  @gX@X#g@g*#?BgInsomevillages,thebearerof_ava_Ԁcupforthevillagecouncilisrecognized  !Y asamatai. *+݌ !  Ќ  #?XDEX?B$+##XXX?XDEf+#@XXXX   S#g" ,  @gX@X#g@g,#?Bg#g?BB-##XXg-# [9ASR2d108]  ,,݌ #g Ќ  [9ASR2d109] ?XDEXXX?BX?XDE V$ #?XDEX?B!.##XXX?XDE.#@XXXX   S%8!%  .  @gX@X#g@g.#AgI.The_Moea'i_ԀMotionforNewTrial ..݌ %8! Ќ  #AX;XA /##XXXAX;K/#@XXXX   SN'"&K" K0  @gX@X#g@g,0#?Bg_Moea_'_i_Ԁf_irst_ԀassertsthattheCourterred"initsjudgmentthat_Moea'i_ N'" failedtoprovehisfamily'sclaim."Thisisanobjectiontothetrialcourt's (R#  findingsoffact.Inthiscaseourfindingwasbasedonourjudgmentofthe ($! credibilityoftheclaimant'switnesses.Although_Moea'i_Ԁwitness_Valoaga_ j)$" _Moananu_Ԁprovidedahelpfulsummaryofthegeneralhistoryofthearea,the *n%# remainderofthetestamentaryevidenceofferedby_Moea'i_Ԁwaseitherirrelevant *"&$ orunbelievableorboth. K0{0݌ +&% Ќ  #?XDEX?B0##XXX?XDE0#@XXXX   S,0(,' 4  @gX@X#g@g4#?BgTheheartof_Moea'i_'sclaimwasthatallnineofthetractsleasedtothe ,0(& Churchin1902or1903,1whichtheleaseidentifiedasbelongingto 4"5݌ -(' Ќ  #?XDEX?BA5##XXX?XDE5#@XXXX   SS 7  @gX@X#g@g6#?Bg1Thecopyoftheleaseintroducedattrialisanunsignedtypewrittenversion S inEnglishthatappearstohavebeenpreparedbytheChurch,theTerritorial  Registrar,ortheSecretaryofNativeAffairsnottoolongaftertheleasewas k made.ItiscertifiedasatruecopybytheRegistrarofTitles,andalso o containsacertificateby_E,M_._Gurr_,then_Secretaryof_ԀNativeAffairs,tothe # effectthathe"faithfullyinterpretedandexplainedtheterms,conditionsand  covenantsthereincontainedtothelessorsthereinnamed,whostatedthatthey ;  thoroughlyunderstandthesame.Itnamesninetractsoflandasincluded  ? within_Mapusaga_ԀandisdatedMarch17,1903.Twosignedhandwrittenversions,   oneinEnglishandoneinSamoan,wereadmittedintoevidenceaftertrial W   withoutobjection.Thesenameten(notnine)tractsoflandandaredated  [  March6,1902.Aftertheleasewassigneditwaspresentedtothecommandant    oftheNavalStationforhisapproval.Certainneighboringchiefsobjected, s   andonApril17,1902thechiefsof_Faleniu_Ԁagreedtodeletethenameofthe 'w  landcalled"_Sinasina_."The_typewri_Ԁ_tten_Ԁandunsigned1903versiondeletes +  _Sinasina_Ԁfromthelistoflandscomposing_Mapusaga_.Themetesandboundsand   thetotalacreageof_Mapusaga_Ԁ(22acres),however,areidenticalinboth1902 C  versionsandinthe1903version.Thelandthechiefsof_Faleniu_Ԁeventually G  leasedtotheChurch,inotherwords,wasthe 727݌   Ќ  #?XDEX?BQ7##XXX?XDE7#@XXXX   SU @  @gX@X#g@g@#?Bg#g?B[A##XXgA# [9ASR2d110]  @@݌ U Ќ  _ [9ASR2d111] ?XDEXXX?BX?XDE_ D #?XDEX?BJB##XXX?XDE+B#@XXXX   S& B  @gX@X#g@gB#?Bgby_Magalei_,in1944by_Tuia'ana_Ԁand_Magalei_,andinthislawsuitby_Tuia'ana_ & alone.Atthehearingonthismotion_Magalei_Ԁtestifiedthatheandother  chiefsofhisfamilywhomighthavehadclaimstopartsof_Mapusaga_Ԁchose > insteadtodeferto_Tuia'ana_.Andyethealsotestifiedthatpartoftheland B knownto_Tuia_'anaas"_Luale_Ԁ'a"wasknownwithinhisbranchofthefamily  as"_Mauga_ԀoleSea."Othersimilardivergencesofopinionwithinthefamily Z groupingsthatincludethefourpartiestothiscasecouldwellaccountfor ^ theremaining1902names.(Wenotethat,inresponsetoanobjectionfrom  neighboringlandowners,thelessorsagreedin1902todeletethenameofone v tractoflandfromthelistofthosewhollyorpartlyincludedin_Mapusaga_. *z Andyettheydidnotdeleteanylandareaorchangethemetesandboundsof . theareatobeleased.Seenote1,supra.Thissuggeststhattheremusthave   beensomedifferenceofopinioneventhenaboutthenamesofthetracts R! composing_Mapusaga_.) B#C݌ V" Ќ  #?XDEX?BBC##XXX?XDEC#@XXXX   S`  ] J  @gX@X#g@gJ#?BgItisalsopossiblethatotherfamilieswithhistoricclaimstopartsof ` # _Mapusaga_Ԁchosenottopressthoseclaimsinthepresentlitigation,andthat !d$ theirlands(alongwiththenamesthereof)weresubsumedwithinthelands !% awardedtothefourpartiesherein.Sucharesultiscertainlypossibleunder |"& ourlandregistrationstatutes,whichrequirelandclaimantstoobjectwithin 0#' sixtydaystothefilingofarivalregistrationorforeverholdtheirpeace. #4( Ifthisdidhappen,italmostcertainlyhadtheeffectofenlargingrather $) thanreducingtheamountoflandawardedto_Moea'i_. JJ݌ L% * Ќ  #?XDEX?B K##XXX?XDEKK#@XXXX   S&!S&! O  @gX@X#g@gN#?BgTheCourtwasboundtoweightheevidenceandargumentsthatwereactually &!+ presentedtoitbythefourpartiesbeforetheCourt.Nobody'scasewasfree Z'", fromdoubt,but_Moeati_'swastheweakestofthefour.Inourjudgment,theway (^#- inwhichheusedallnineof"the1903namesweakenedratherthanstrengthened ($. hiscredibility. OMO݌ v)$/ Ќ  #?XDEX?BlO##XXX?XDEO#@XXXX   S* &}*% "R  @gX@X#g@gR#?BgFinally,_Moeati_Ԁurgesthat_Tuia'ana_Ԁ"isnotcapableofowninglandunder * &0 Samoancustoms"andthat_Alai'a_Ԁ"failedtoprovebyapreponderanceof +&1 evidence..acapacitytoownlandunderSamoancustoms."Theseissueswerenot 8,'2 raisedinthepleadings,although_Moea'i_Ԁknewatthetimehefiledhis ,<(3 pleadingthat_Tuia'ana_Ԁand_Alaita_Ԁwereamongtheobjectorstohissurvey.Nor -(4 aretheymentionedin_Moeati_'spretrialmemorandum,despite "RRR݌  Ќ  _#?XDEX?BqR##XXX?XDER#@XXXX_   S Z V  _@gX@X#g@gVV#?Bg111_Ԁ  Z  VV݌̌  _#?XDEX?BV##XXX?XDE&W#@XXXX_   Sh X  _@gX@X#g@gW#?Bgla'_Ԁ_i_Ԁ_tii_ԀtileMatterhorn.)Theterm"_vaega_Ԁ_i_Ԁ_tii_Ԁti"maywellhavemeant h not"smallparts"but"smallerparts".2Itisbeyonddisputethatthe1902  leasedescribes_Mapusaga_Ԁasincludingalloffivetractsoflandandsmaller   parts_Ԅthat_Ԁis,lessthanall_Ԅof_Ԁfiveothertracts.Thisisfully 4  consistentwiththeCourt'sholdinginthepresentcase. XIX݌  8 Ќ  _#?XDEX?BxX##XXX?XDEX#@XXXX_   SB  ? \\  _@gX@X#g@g-\#?BgMoreover,_ԀtheexactwordingoftheSamoanversionisofdubiousimportancein B  lightofthefactthattheoriginalversionoftheleasewasalmostcertainly  F  theEnglishversion.TheEnglish \\\݌    Ќ  _#?XDEX?B\##XXX?XDE\#@XXXX_   ST   ^  _@gX@X#g@g^#?Bg2_Ԁ~Pratt'sGrammarand_Dictionaryof_ԀtheSamoanLanguageat68(4thed.1911): T   ^^݌̌  _#?XDEX?B._##XXX?XDEp_#@XXXX_   Sb   `  _@gX@X#g@g`#?BgThe_Ԁlanguagehasinrecentyears,owingtotheinfluenceofforeignlanguages, b  undergonesomemodificationinregardtothecomparisonofadjectives. ``݌   Ќ  _#?XDEX?B+a##XXX?XDEma#@XXXX_   S p c  _@ X@X#  @b#?  Compare_Ԁid.at50: c4c݌  p Ќ  _#?XDEX ?cc##XXX?XDEc#@XXXX_   Sfc d  _@gX@X#g@gvd#?BgMore_Ԁusually,andmoreinaccordancewithpureSamoanidiomistheuseoftwo f adjectivespointingacontrast,whichhoweverisonlyimplied;asE_lelei_ j _lenei_.ae_leag;a_Ԁ_lena_,Thisisgoodbutthatisbad,notinitself,butin  comparisonwiththeother;E'_umi_Ԁ_lenei_.ae_PU'upu'u_Ԁ_lena_,Thisislonger  thanthat.[Thisislong,butthatisshort.] dd݌ 6 Ќ  _#?XDEX?Be##XXX?XDEFe#@XXXX_   S= h  _@gX@X#g@gh#?BgSee_Ԁalso_C.C._Ԁ_Marsack_,Samoan,at66(1962): hi݌  Ќ  _#?XDEX?B?i##XXX?XDEi#@XXXX_   S: j  _@gX@X#g@gj#?BgThe_ԀcomparativeandsuperlativeformsofadjectivedonotexistinSamoan; : therearenoformsequivalentto"longer'.,"longest",or"fatter"I  "fattest".Theeffectofadjectivalcomparisonhastobeobtainedina R roundaboutway.EveninthecaseofgiantvesselsliketheQueenMaryandthe V Aquitania..aSamoanoftheoldschoolwouldsay:_Ua_Ԁ_tele_ԀleQueenMary,_ua_   _la'itiiti_ԀleAquitania.LiterallytheQueenMaryisbig,theAquitaniais n small. j k݌ "r Ќ  _#?XDEX?B:k##XXX?XDE|k#@XXXX_   S|)y %o  _@gX@X#g@gn#?Bg113_Ԁ %oUo݌ | Ќ  _#?XDEX?Bo##XXX?XDEo#@XXXX_   S & __ p  _@gX@X#g@gp#?BgԄ_Ԁ  &  pq݌̌  _#?XDEX?B6q##XXX?XDExq#@XXXX_   S"4" kr  _@gX@X#g@g+& <  _@gX@X#g@g #?BgOther_Ԁfamiliestakestrongissuewiththistestimony,particularlywith_Tago_'s +&) statementthatwhen_Te'o_Ԁ_Seva'aetasi_ԀcametoPago_Pago_Ԁtherewasnochief E,'*  called_Mauga_. <l݌ ,I(+ Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   SS C  _@gX@X#g@g#?BgFortunately,_ԀtheCourtdoesnotneedtodecidethishistoricalquestion,for S  _Tago_'sclaiminthiscasedoesnotstandorfallonwhetherheshouldbe  regardedasamataiinthevillageofPago_Pago_.Beforethecomingofthe k UnitedStatesgovernmentthestructureofSamoansocietywassuchthat o familiesofonevillagedidnotacquirelandinothervillagesbyoriginal # occupation.Eveninthosedays,however,therearereportedinstancesof  acquisitionofsuchlandbygift._Todayanyone_Ԁwithatleastfiftypercent ;  Samoanbloodcanacquirelandinanyvillagenotjustthevillageinwhichhis  ? familyormataititleresides_Ԅby_Ԁgiftorpurchase.Moreover,sincethe   comingofthegovernmentithasoftenhappenedthatpeopleofonevillagemove W   tounoccupiedlandnearanothervillageandbegintocultivateit.Inmost  [  casesthesepeoplelaterclaimthelandastheirindividualland,butthereis    nolegalimpedimenttotheirclaimingitonbehalfofacommunalfamily.A s   personwhobuysorisgivenatractofland,orwhoacquiresitbyoriginal 'w  occupationandcultivation,hastheoptionofdoingsoonhisownindividual +  accountoronbehalfofhisfamily. Cs݌   Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   S9     _@gX@X#g@g#?BgIt_Ԁwasprovenattrialthat_Tago_Ԁandothermembersofthe_Seva'aetasi_Ԁfamily 9  haveoccupiedthe2.5acretractcalled_Ili'ili_Ԁevenearlierthantheirformal   acquisitionofitfromtheircousinMary_Howden_Ԁin1951.Duringthisperiod Q  theywerealsocultivatinglandtothewestofthe2.5acretract,ofwhichwe U havenoconvincingevidenceofprioroccupationbyanyoneelse.Theweightof   thetestimonyistotheeffectthat_Tago_'ssister G݌ m Ќ  _#?XDEX?Bv##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   St `  _@gX@X#g@g1#?Bg121_Ԁ `݌  Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   S!q__   _@gX@X#g@g#?BgԄ_Ԁ !q  B݌̌  _#?XDEX?Bq##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   S/,   _@gX@X#g@gu#AgIII._ԀThe_Fanene_Ԁand_Asueg:a_ԀClaims ݌ / Ќ  _#AX;XA##XXXAX;E#@XXXX_   SB   _@gX@X#g@gf#?BgVarious_Ԁmembersofthe_Fanene_Ԁfamilyhavelongcultivatedlandtothenorthof  the_Epi_Ԁand_Ua_Ԁ_Ta'ita'i_Ԁtract.(_Fanene_Ԁalsoappearstoownlandfurtherupthe I mountain,aswellaslandtotheeastinthevicinityofthe_L.M.S._Ԁchurch. M Theselands,likeotherlandsinthevicinityownedby_Seva'aetasi_Ԁand_Asuega_,  arenotatissueinthiscase.)The_Fanene_Ԁfamilyfiledaclaimtotheland e inquestionin1964,andfiledtheaforementionedinjunctiveactionin1974. ݌ i Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE6#@XXXX_   Ss p z  _@gX@X#g@gK#?BgIn_Ԁthepresentactiontheareaclaimedby_Fanene_Ԁisalsoclaimedby_Asuega_. s  Shepointsoutthatallthe_Fanene_Ԁfamilymemberswhohaveoccupiedtheland ' w! overtheyearsarealsobloodmembersofherownfamily.Moreover,inapost_Ԅ_  +" trialaffidavit_Asuega_Ԁidentifiestwopeoplewhoshesaysonceoccupiedthe !# landandwhoshesaysweremembersofthe_Asuega_Ԁfamilybutnotofthe_Fanene_ C"$ family. z݌ "G% Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   SQ$#N   _@gX@X#g@g#?BgThe_Ԁweightoftheevidence,however,isthatthelandinquestionis_Fanene_ Q$& land._Oti_Ԁ_Fanene_,whommostwitnessesforotherpartiesrememberasthemost %U ' visiblememberofeitherfamilyonthelandduringthelastthirtyyearsor % !( so,isdescendedfromboth_Asuega_Ԁand_Fanene_Ԁbutthinksofhimselfas m&!) occupyingthelandasa_Fanene_.Witnessesforotherpartiesinvariably !'q"* identifiedthepeopleinthisareaas"_Fanene_Ԁpeople."Only_Asuega_Ԁherself '%#+ identifiedthetwonon_ԄFanene_Ԁfamilymembersasoccupyingtheareain (#, question;eventhesetwocouldhavebeenonthelandbecauseoftheir =)$- connectiontootherswhodidhave_Fanene_Ԁblood, ݌ )A%. Ќ  _#?XDEX?B4##XXX?XDEv#@XXXX_   SK+&*H&   _@gX@X#g@g#?BgThe_Ԁfailureofthethen_Asuega_Ԁtitleholdertofileaclaimtothelandin K+&/ questionwhenthegovernmentcondemnedthelandfortheroadin1964ishardly +O'0 consistentwithalongfamilytraditionthatthiswas_Asuega_Ԁland.Indeed,the ,(1 present_Asuega_Ԁtestifiedthatsheherself_Ԅa_Ԁmemberofboththe_Fanene_Ԁand g-(2 _Asuega_Ԁfamilieswhothenheldneithertitlehadurged_Fanene_Ԁtofilehisclaim .k)3 butmadenosuchsuggestionto_Asuega_. ݌  Ќ  Weconcludethatthe_Fanene_Ԁfamilymayregisterthelandwithinthe_Fanene_  survey,with k 123 y  S_#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE^#___   S # __ L  gXX?Bg  L݌̌  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   S ;    _@gX@X#g@g#?Bgthousands_ԀofyearsagoandhadhelpedtoexpeltheTonganinvaders.Hethen   toldvariouschiefswheretoputtheirhousesandplanttheircropswithinthe B  liberatedareas. ݌  F  Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDER#@XXXX_   S M    _@gX@X#g@g#?BgIt_Ԁisquitepossible,however,forachieftoberecognizedashavinga  M  certainauthorityoverotherchiefsandyetfortheseotherchiefstoown   theirownland.Inalmosteveryvillageandcountythereisatleastonechief e  whohas"pol_i_Ԁtical00puleoverthewholevillageordistrictwithouthaving i  "proprietary"puleoverthecommunallandsofotherfamilies.Anexcerptfrom   thetestimonyofa_Te'o_Ԁtitleholderalmostsixtyyearsagoisinstructive: C݌   Ќ  _#?XDEX?Br##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   S 5    _@gX@X#g@g#?Bg[The_ԀCourt]:Doyouclaimthat_Leota_Ԁisnowlivingonlandthatyouallowed   himtoliveon? >݌ < Ќ  _#?XDEX?Bm##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   SC@ ,  _@ X@X#  @#A [Te'o]_Ԁ: ,\݌ C Ќ  _#AX;XA##XXXAX;#@XXXX_   SFC   _@gX@X#g@g#?BgYes._Ԁ ݌ F Ќ  _#?XDEX?B"##XXX?XDEd#@XXXX_   SMJ V  _@gX@X#g@g'#?BgQ:_ԀHowlongagodid_Leota_Ԁaskyouifhemightlivethere? V݌ M Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   STQ >  _@gX@X#g@g#?BgA:_ԀManyyearsago. >n݌ T Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   S[X   _@gX@X#g@g#?BgQ:_ԀHowolddidyousaythatyouwere? ݌ [ Ќ  _#?XDEX?B>##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   Sb_   _@gX@X#g@gd#?BgA:_Ԁ51years. ݌ b Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE4#@XXXX_   Sif .   _@gX@X#g@g#?BgQ:_ԀDoyouknowhowold_Leota_Ԁis? . ^ ݌ i Ќ  _#?XDEX?B ##XXX?XDE #@XXXX_   Spm    _@gX@X#g@g #?BgA:_ԀMaybe70years.  - ݌ p Ќ  _#?XDEX?B\ ##XXX?XDE #@XXXX_   Sw$t    _@gX@X#g@go #?BgQ:_ԀHowoldwereyouwhenyoupermissiontooccupythisland?   ݌ w Ќ  _#?XDEX?B ##XXX?XDE? #@XXXX_   S~+{ i  _@gX@X#g@g:#?Bggave_Ԁ_Leota_Ԁ i݌ ~ Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE #@XXXX_   S2 "  _@gX@X#g@g#?BgA:_ԀIdonotmeanitwasmyselfbuttheotherholderofthename_Teo_. "R݌  Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   S9   _@gX@X#g@g#?BgQ:_ԀWouldyouhave_anyobjections_Ԁtoallowing_Leota_Ԁtoregisterthelandhe  liveson? E݌ @  Ќ  _#?XDEX?Bt##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   SG! D K  _@gX@X#g@g#AgA:_ԀNo. K{݌ G! Ќ  _#AX;XA##XXXAX;#@XXXX_   SZ""W   _@gX@X#g@g#?BgQ._ԀDidyouyourselfeverthereorreaptheharvest? ݌ Z"  Ќ  _#?XDEX?B?##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   Sa##^   _@gX@X#g@gs#?Bgplant_Ԁanythingup ݌ a#! Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDEC#@XXXX_   Sh$$e B  _@gX@X#g@g#?Bg125_Ԁ h$"  Br݌̌  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   S#&s!% !   _@gX@X#g@g#?Bgsurveys_Ԁmeetstheforthegovernmentthesharpbendinthesouthernedge #&s!$ governmentroad. ݌ &'"% Ќ  _#?XDEX?B5##XXX?XDEw#@XXXX_   S'.#'"   _@gX@X#g@g#?Bgwestern_Ԁedgeofthelandtakenroad(ataboutthemidpointintheroad);and '.#& ontheNorthbyofthelandtakenforthe ݌ (#' Ќ  _#?XDEX?B1##XXX?XDEs#@XXXX_   S)$F)$   _@gX@X#g@g#?BgEpi_Ԁ_Ta'ita'i_ԀandtheEstateof_Ua_Ԁ_Ta'ita'i_Ԁ(orhisheirsorsuccessors,ifthe )$( estatehasbeenclosed)_may_Ԁ_register_Ԁthe_Epi_Ԁand_Ua_Ԁ_Ta'ita'i_Ԁsurvey. ݌ M*%) Ќ  _#?XDEX?BJ##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   S`+& +]& '"  _@gX@X#g@g!#?BgThe_Ԁ_Fanene_Ԁfamily_may_Ԁ_register_Ԁtwotracts,separatedbyaportionoftheland `+&* takenforthegovernmentroad.ThefirsttractisdefinedontheSouthbythe  ,p'+ _Epi_Ԁand_Ua_Ԁ_Ta'ita'i_Ԁsurvey;ontheWestbythestreamdefiningthewestern ,$(, edgeofthe_Fanene_Ԁsurvey;ontheNorthbythenorthernmostlineofthe -(- _Seva'aetasi_Ԁand_Asuega_Ԁsurveysuntilitmeetsthelandtakenforthe  governmentroad,atthemidpointofthesharpbendnearthewatertank;andon d theEastbyalineextendingfromthepointjustdefined(atthemidpointof h thesharpbend)tothe_southeasternmost_Ԁpointofthe_Fanene_Ԁsurvey,andbeyond  thatpointtothenorthernboundaryofthe_Epi_Ԁand_Ua_Ԁ_Ta'ita'i_Ԁsurvey.The  secondtractisdefinedontheSouthbythenorthernedgeofthelandtaken 4 forthegovernmentroadasitheadswesttowardthesharpbendnearthewater 8 tank;ontheNorthwestbythesoutheasternedgeofthelandtakenforthe   governmentroadafteritturnsthebendandheadstowardthewatertank,as P  farasthenorthernboundaryofthe_Fanene_Ԁsurvey;andontheNortheastbythe  T  northernboundaryofthe_Fanene_Ԁsurveyfromthesoutheasternedgeoftheland    takenforthegovernmentroadtothe_northeasternmost_Ԁcornerofthe_Fanene_ l   survey,andextendingbeyondthatpointtotheintersectionofthenorthern  p  edgeofthelandtakenforthegovernmentroadwiththewesternboundaryof  $  the2.5acre_Seva'aetasi_Ԁtract. '"W"݌   Ќ  _#?XDEX?B"##XXX?XDE"#@XXXX_   S <  ,  _@gX@X#g@g,#?BgWe_Ԁexpressnoopinionthelandwithinthe_Fanene_Ԁnorthernmostboundaryofthe   surveysandwestofthegovernmentroad. ,--݌ C  Ќ  _#?XDEX?B\-##XXX?XDE-#@XXXX_   SJ G  6/  _@gX@X#g@g/#?Bgabout_Ԁtheownershipofsurveynorthofthe_Seva'aetasi_Ԁand_Asuega_Ԁlandtaken J  forthe 6/f/݌ N  Ќ  _#?XDEX?B/##XXX?XDE/#@XXXX_   SU m1  _@gX@X#g@g>1#?BgWe_Ԁalsoexpressnoopinionaboutthelandwithinthe_Seva'aetasi_Ԁsurveynorth U ofthegovernmentroad,exceptthatthe_Fanene_Ԁfamilyproveditsownershipof   thesmallportionofthistractdescribedaboveandthatthe_Seva'aetasi_ m familydidnotproveitsownershipof_any_Ԁ_land_Ԁ m11݌ !q Ќ  _#?XDEX?B1##XXX?XDE2#@XXXX_   S41 4  _@gX@X#g@g4#?Bg127_Ԁ 4  4!5݌̌  _#?XDEX?BP5##XXX?XDE5#@XXXX_   S? 6  _@gX@X#g@gV6#?Bgexercised_Ԁinanarbitrary,discriminatorymanner. 66݌ ? Ќ  _#?XDEX?B6##XXX?XDE&7#@XXXX_   SF E8  _@gX@X#g@g8#?Bgcapricious,_Ԁ E8u8݌ F Ќ  _#?XDEX?B8##XXX?XDE8#@XXXX_   SM 9  _@gX@X#g@g9#?Bgor_Ԁ 9:݌ M Ќ  _#?XDEX?B>:##XXX?XDE:#@XXXX_   ST p;  _@gX@X#g@gA;#?Bgr_ԀBefore_KRUSE_,ChiefJustice,_TUIAFONO_,AssociateJudge,and_VAIVAO_, T AssociateJudge, p;;݌  Ќ  _#?XDEX?B;##XXX?XDE<#@XXXX_   Sl =  _@gX@X#g@g=#?BgCounsel:_ԀForPlaintiff,BarryI.Rose,AssistantAttorneyGeneralFor  Defendant,HerbertEvans,AssistantPublicDefender ==݌ s Ќ  _#?XDEX?B(>##XXX?XDEj>#@XXXX_   Sz'w ?  _@gX@X#g@g?#?BgThe_ԀgovernmenthaslaidaninformationbeforetheCourtaccusingthedefendant z  ofhavingcommittedthecrimeofassaultinthefirstdegree,aClassA .~! felony,inviolationof_A.S.C.A_,_46.3520(a)(1)._ԀThedefendantmovesto 2" quashtheinformationanddismissthecriminalproceedingagainsthimonthe  # groundsthat:heisaminor;and,thathehasnotbeencertifiedbythecourt J!$ tostandtrialasanadultinviolationofhisrightstodueprocess. ?@݌ !N% Ќ  _#?XDEX?BD@##XXX?XDE@#@XXXX_   S#U" C  _@gX@X#g@gC#?BgGovernment_Ԁontheotherhand,citingtheJuvenileJusticeActof1980, #U& _A.S.C.A._Ԁ_45.0115(c)(2)(A),_Ԁassertsitsstatutorydiscretiontoprosecute # ' childrenovertheageoffourteenyears,whoareaccusedofcommittinga m$( "crimeofviolence.00 CD݌ !%q ) Ќ  _#?XDEX?B>D##XXX?XDED#@XXXX_   S(&x!%%! F  _@gX@X#g@gF#GSgDISCUSSION_Ԁ FG݌ (&x!* Ќ  _#GXiXGSAG##XXXGXiG#@XXXX_   SC'"&@" {H  _@gX@X#g@gLH#?BgWe_Ԁfirstlooktoapplicablestatute.45.0115(c)(1)provides: {HH݌ C'"+ Ќ  _#?XDEX?BH##XXX?XDEI#@XXXX_   SJ(#'G# FJ  _@gX@X#g@gJ#?BgSection_Ԁ FJvJ݌ J(#, Ќ  _#?XDEX?BJ##XXX?XDEJ#@XXXX_   SQ)$(N$ K  _@gX@X#g@gK#?BgWhen_Ԁapetitionfiledincourtallegesachild14yearsofageoroldertobe Q)$- adelinquentchildbyvirtueofhavingcommittedanactwhichwouldconstitute *U%. afelonyifcommitted_byan_Ԁadultandif,afterinvestigationandahearing, * &/ thecourtfindsitwouldbecontrarytothebestinterestsofthechildorof m+&0 thepublictoprosecutethechildasajuvenile,itmayenteranorder !,q'1 certifyingthechildtobeheldforcriminalproceedingsasanadult. K L݌ ,%(2 Ќ  _#?XDEX?B;L##XXX?XDE}L#@XXXX_   S-,)-( O  _@gX@X#g@gO#?Bg(Emphasis_Ԁadded). OO݌ -,)3 Ќ  _#?XDEX?BP##XXX?XDESP#@XXXX_   SS RQ  _@gX@X#g@g#Q#?Bg129_Ԁ S  RQQ݌̌  _#?XDEX?BQ##XXX?XDEQ#@XXXX   Sk R  @gX@X#g@gR#?BgtheFonohasclearlygiventotheAttorneyGeneraltheappropriatediscretion  whethertoproceedunderthecriminalcodeortheJuvenileAct. RS݌ r Ќ  #?XDEX?B%S##XXX?XDEgS#@XXXX   Sy&v T  @gX@X#g@gT#?BgTheseparationofpowersdoctrinepreventsthecourts,inthenormalcourse, y frominterferencewithsuchdelegateddiscretionunlessofcoursethe - } discretionisabusedorindeedthedelegationisconstitutionallyimproper,  1 Havingreviewedtheprovisionsofthelocalstatuteandevaluatedtheweight   ofauthority,thisCourtispersuadednottodepartfromwhatitperceivesas I  thenormalcourse.~UnitedStatesv.Bland,472F.2d1329(D.C.Cir.1972),  M  cert.denied412U.S.909(1973);QQAv.UnitedStates,473F.2nd334(4th    Cir.),cert.denied414U.S.869(1973);UnitedStatesv.Quinones,516F.2d e   1309(lstCir,),cert.denied423U.S.852(1975). TT݌ i  Ќ  #?XDEX?BU##XXX?XDEWU#@XXXX   S p   HY  @gX@X#g@g)Y#?BgThedefensereferredustoanumberofcases,includingtheSupremeCourt's  p  decisioninKentv.UnitedStates,383U.S.541(1966).Wefindnothingin $  thesecasestosuggestthataperson,byreasonofhisorherminority,hasan   independentorabsoluterighttocertificationproceedingsinallcriminally <  relatedmatters.Nordowefindanysuggestionrequiringthecourt's @  involvementinallcases.Rather,thesecaseswereconcernedwith"   statutorily"createdjuvenilerightsandbenefitsnecessitatingjudicial X supervisioninonemanneroranother.2~,forexample,dealtwithaDistrict HYxY݌  \ Ќ  #?XDEX?BY##XXX?XDEY#@XXXX   Sc v]  @gX@X#g@gW]#?Bg2TheterritorialJuvenileJusticeActof1980doesnotcreateanewjuvenile c court.Thereferenceto"Court"intheenactmentmeansTrialDivisionofthe  HighCourt.~45.0103(8).Thissamedivisionwhichhasjurisdictionover { theprosecutionof"violentcrimes"alsoundertakesthecertificationhearings / requiredbysection45.0115(c)(1).TheAct'sprovisionforjudicial 3 involvementincertificationproceedingsissomewhatdifferentthanthe  statutoryschemesadoptedbymanyofthestates.Thesecreateseparate K juvenilecourtswith"exclusive"jurisdictionoverminors.Such5chemes O authorizethejuvenilecourttowaiveit5juri5dictionoverminorsaccusedof  certaincrimesinfavorofthecriminalcourts.However,suchwaiver g proceedingsmu5taffordproceduraldueproce5stotheminoraffected.See k discussionof v]]݌   Ќ  #?XDEX?B]##XXX?XDE^#@XXXX   S& b  @gX@X#g@gb#?Bg131 bc݌ &! Ќ  #?XDEX?B1c##XXX?XDEsc#@XXXX   S- 4d  @gX@X#g@gd#?BgԄ -"  4ddd݌̌  #?XDEX?Bd##XXX?XDEd#@XXXX   S E  e  @gX@X#g@gge#?BgAttorney"unbridled"discretiontoproceedagainstaminorasajuvenileor  $ anadult.ThedefendantclaimedhewasdenieddueprocessbecausetheCounty L!% Attorneywaspermittedtomakethisdecisionalonewithoutanystandardsand "P& withoutahearing.The8thCircuitfollowedQQA,Bland,andQuinones,andheld "' thattheexerciseofprosecutorialdiscretiondidnotrequireadueprocess h#( hearing.rg.at1216.Thecourtalsodistinguished~notingthatKentinvolved $l) thedecisionofthejuvenilecourttowaiveitsjurisdiction,andtherefore, $ * thejuvenilewasentitledtoahearingonthewaiver,whereas,thecaseat % + issuedidnotinvolvejudicialproceedings,butrather,the"traditional 8&!, exerciseofdiscretionwithintheexecutivebranch."J.g. ee݌ &<"- Ќ  #?XDEX?Be##XXX?XDEf#@XXXX   S'C#'" uj  @gX@X#g@gVj#?BgSimilarlyinWoodardv.Wainwri~ht,556F.2d781(5thCir.1977),cert.denied 'C#. 434U.S.1088(1978),petitionerschallengedthevalidityofaFloridastatute (#/ whichprovided"'[a]childofanyagechargedwithaviolationofFloridalaw [)$0 punishablebydeathorlifeimprisonment'shallbetriedasanadult'[if]an *_%1 indictmentonsuchchargeisreturnedbythegrandjury.'"lJ;Lat783.It *&2 waswithintheprosecutor'sdiscretiontoseeksuchanindictment. ujj݌ w+&3 Ќ  #?XDEX?Bj##XXX?XDEk#@XXXX   S~,'+,{' m  @gX@X#g@gm#?BgThepetitioners,relyingon~,arguedthattheywereentitledtoadueprocess ~,'4  hearingbeforejurisdictionofthejuvenilecourtcouldbewaived. m"n݌ 2-(5 Ќ  #?XDEX?BAn##XXX?XDEn#@XXXX   SS o  @gX@X#g@go#?BgThe5thCircuit,likethecourtsoftheothercircuits,distinguishedMn.t."~ S  concernedastatutorydutybyajuvenilecourtjudgetoinvestigateandhear  mattersrelevanttothewaiverofjuvenilediscretion,whereasthiscase k concernstheprosecutor'sdiscretionaryacttopresenthiscasetoagrand o jury.".l!i.at784. o p݌ # Ќ  #?XDEX?B?p##XXX?XDEp#@XXXX   S* r  @gX@X#g@gr#?BgFurther,thecourtupheldthestatute.reasonedthat"treatmentasajuvenile * isnotaninherentrightbutonegrantedbythestatelegislature,therefore   thelegislaturemayrestrictorqualifythatrightasitseesfit,aslongas B  noarbitraryordiscriminatoryclassificationisinvolved.".lctat785.The  F court,quotingBland,supra,notedthatthelegislativeclassificationcreated    bythestatutewas"'entitledtoastrongpresumptionofvalidity[which]may ^   be"setasideonlyifnogroundcanbeconceivedtojustify[it].""'J.g.It  b  thenrejectedpetitioner's r s݌    Ќ  #?XDEX?B,s##XXX?XDEns#@XXXX   S z  v  @gX@X#g@gv#?BgIt v"w݌   Ќ  #?XDEX?BAw##XXX?XDEw#@XXXX   S$   Cx  @gX@X#g@g$x#?Bg133 $   Cxsx݌̌  #?XDEX?Bx##XXX?XDEx#@XXXX   S <  y  @gX@X#g@gxy#?Bg"nomorethanthatwhichisinherentinoursystemofcriminaljustice.Its   originisfoundinthecommonlawofEngland."Johnsonv.State.314So.2d C  573,577(Fla.1975). yy݌ G Ќ  #?XDEX?By##XXX?XDE(z#@XXXX   SN {  @gX@X#g@g{#?BgFurther,atcommonlawachildovertheageof14yearswaspresumptively N capableofcommittingacrimeandtheprosecutionofsuchaperson,asin  everyothercase,wasthesubjectofprosecutorialdiscretion.Theamenability f ofminorstothecriminalproCesshasnowbeenchangedbythevariousjuvenile j codeslegislativelyadopted.Whatisinthepowerofthelegislaturetogrant  isalsointhepowerofthelegislaturetowithholdorlimitaslongasno  arbitraryordiscriminatoryclassificationisinvolved.Woodardv.Wainwri~ht, 6 supra.AccordinglythereservationofproSecutorialdiscretioninwhetheror : nottoindictaminoraccusedofcommittingacertainrangeofoffensesis  historicallywellfoundedinourlegalsystem. {{݌ R Ќ  #?XDEX?B |##XXX?XDEL|#@XXXX   SYV   @gX@X#g@g#?BgFinally,thedefensewenttogreatlengthstoattempttoShoWthedesirability Y ofeliminatingprosecutorialdiscretioninfavorofjudicialcertification  ] proceedings.Wesimplydismissthesecontentionsasnormativeargument.The  policyreasonsbehindcertificationproceedingsversusproSecutorial u  discretionarematterswithinthelegislativerealm.ThecitetoGoVernmentv. )y! Fuaalii.4A.S.R.828(1975)ismisplacedreliance.ThereasoninginFuaalii, -" concernedlegislativepolicydecisionswhichhavebeenrepealedbythestatute # beforeusandaccordinglythecaseinapposite. Ѐ݌ E $ Ќ  #?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE1#@XXXX   SL! I   @gX@X#g@g#?BgWeconcludeontheforegoingthatthecriminalinformationlaidbeforethe L!% CourtwastheexerciseofproSecutorialdiscretionvestedintheAttorney "P& GeneralbytheprovisionsofA.S.C.A.45.0115(c)(2)(A).Therehasbeenno "' showingwhatsoeverofabuseorthattheexerciseofthisdiscretionhasbeen h#( arbitrary,capricious,ordiscriminatory. ݌ $l) Ќ  #?XDEX?B##XXX?XDEQ#@XXXX*HT ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,  ,- ,X , ,& , +  :BBBB'$ *$   :   S/% $,  S &  @gX@X#g@g#?Bg D )n$? % $;  d  @gX@X#g@gE#?BgActualIntentionsofParties d݌ >% & Ќ  #?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE#@XXXX   S&!E&! ϳ  @gX@X#g@g#?BgFirstly,defendants'contentionsinconnectionherewithessentiallygoto &!' mattersoffact.Theevidencewasconflictingwithregardtothegrantor's L'"( intentionswhichwerenotmadeveryclear.Inourview,allthatisclearfrom (P#) theevidencewasthatthegrantoractedinconsistentlyandthenpathetically ($* attemptedtoundotheresultsofhisinconsistentactions.Thatishepoints h)$+ outtoSchustertheirrightofwayandthenwittinglyorunwittinglyattempts *l%, tosubsequentlysellthatrightofwayareatothedefendantsseveral_years * &- after.CertainlythiswasoneofthereasonsfortheCourt'spleatothe_Fono_ +&. forregulatinglandsubdivisions. ϳ݌ 8,'/ Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE`#@XXXX_   S-(?-(   _@gX@X#g@gf#?BgWe_Ԁdisagreeevidence. Ÿ݌ -(0 Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE6#@XXXX_   SS 9  _@gX@X#g@g #?Bgwith_Ԁ 9i݌ S Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDEں#@XXXX_   S] Z ̻  _@gX@X#g@g#?Bgdefendants'_Ԁ ̻݌ ] Ќ  _#?XDEX?B+##XXX?XDEm#@XXXX_   Sd f  _@gX@X#g@g7#?Bgview_Ԁ f݌  Ќ  _#?XDEX?BŽ##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   S a   _@gX@X#g@gʾ#?Bgof_Ԁ )݌  a Ќ  _#?XDEX?BX##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   Sk  h   _@gX@X#g@g[#?Bgthe_Ԁ ݌ k  Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE+#@XXXX_   S r    _@gX@X#g@g#?BgDefendants'_Ԁfinalentreatywiththeirmotionissimplywhyus?Whynotthe   otherandapparent_servient_Ԁtenement(the_Seses_)aswell? L݌ y  Ќ  _#?XDEX?B{##XXX?XDE#@XXXX_   S #    _@gX@X#g@gT#?BgWe_Ԁnecessarilyfoundontheevidencethatthe_Schusters_Ԁwereshownarightof  #  wayoutsidethenineacretract.Astheydidnotfrequenttheirland,the   _Schusters_'rightofwayneverbecameapparentthroughusage.Thosethatdid ;  frequenttheirlands,thedefendantsandthe_Seses_,didostensiblyestablish ?  thatrightofwayasbeingcontainedoutsidethenineacretract.Thelogical   extensiontowardsthe_Schusters_'ofthatrightof_wayas_Ԁdevelopedthrough W  usageisapproximatelythatareawhichtheCourthasdeclaredtobetheaccess  [  totheSchusterland.Further,thepurchasebythedefendantsofthatarea  whichincludedtheaccessasshowntothe_Schusters_Ԁbythegrantor,wasthe s latestconveyance.Thedefendantswereinthebestpositiontocheckthe 'w wrong,orevenperhapsthefraud,committedbythegrantorinhis ݌ + Ќ  _#?XDEX?B##XXX?XDE$#@XXXX_   S52   _@gX@X#g@g#?Bg139_Ԁ ݌ 5 Ќ  S_#?XDEX?B2##XXX?XDEt#_