v.
LEOPOLE FAUMUINA and FANENE AIPOPO
LAULU for the FANENE FAMILY, Defendants.
LT No. 12-90
________________________________
ALAI`ASA FILIFILI for the
v.
TUIA`ANA MOI for the TUIA`ANA FAMILY, MOEA`I
ULIATA for
the MOEA`I FAMILY, and SEIGAFO E. SCANLAN,
Objectors.
LT No. 76-90
LT No. 78-90
LT No. 79-90
________________________________
v.
FANENE AIPOPO LAULU, FONOTI TAFA`IFA, TUIA`ANA
MOI,
MOEA`I FAMILY, and TAUILIILI PEMERIKA,
Defendants.
LT No. 25-96
________________________________
v.
TUITOGA PUAILOA FANENE, FANENE A. LAULU for
FANENE FAMILY MEMBERS,
TUIA`ANA MOI, ISEULAOLEMOANA S. SOTOA, Legal
Representative of the
ESTATE OF SALOFI R. SOTOA, PEMERIKA TAUILIILI,
LAUMA VALOAGA V. MOANANU, and FONOTI TAFA`IFA,
Objectors.
LT No. 14-96 [1ASR3d207]
Trial Division
August 5, 1997
[1] The principles underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied in land and titles matters.
[2] The court will grant a motion to dismiss at the close of a claimant’s case in a Land & Title matter if he cannot establish a preponderance of the evidence in favor of his position.
[3] Article I, section 3, of the Revised Constitution of American Samoa, which shields Samoans from “alienation of their land and destruction of the Samoan way of life and language,” does not prohibit the alienation of communal land to other Samoans, nor does it limit the categories of Samoan land ownership.
[4] Article I, section 3, of the Revised Constitution of American Samoa does not require the burden of persuasion to be shifted to those parties with claims of individual ownership.
[5] The Territorial Registrar should not process a proffered title registration if the title to the land is already registered.
[6] A judgment in a prior case, between the same parties, or those in privity with them, which involves the same land title issue, is res judicata and binds the parties and the court.
[7] Arguments that a decision regarding land is contrary to Samoan custom or violative of treaty should be presented to the court deciding the case at the time that it is heard, and do not serve as a basis for later reversing a decision that has been fully litigated.
[8] Res judicata is a rule of substantive law and not of practice or procedure.
[9] Res judicata cannot be set aside by employing A.S.C.A. § 3.0242(b).
[10] The sa`o of a family need not personally appear in order for the family to defend claims made against its communal land.
[11] Where family was represented by both village matai and sister of sa`o, and advised by a capable legal practitioner and family member, it was a party to previous land case and bound by that decision. [1ASR3d208]
[12] The purpose of title registration is to record the ownership of surveyed land for the world to know.
[13] Any claimant who fails to object to the offer of registration of title to land by the end of the 60-day notice period loses his claim and is forever bound by the subsequent registration, in the absence of fraud or similar circumstance.
[14] Absence of a family’s sa`o from the territory during 60-day notice period does not excuse the family’s failure to object to an offer of registration of title to its land.
[15] A party is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and actual costs from a claimant who unsuccessfully relitigates land titles.
[16] Although Rule 11 sanctions are normally imposed against an attorney, they may be imposed against a party when warranted.
Before
Counsel: For Plaintiff/Claimant Alai`asa Filifili
Mailei for the
For Defendant/Objector
Fanene Aipopo Laulu for the Fanene Family, Defendant Leopole Faumuina, and
Objector Tuitoga Puailoa Fanene, Cherie Shelton Norman
For
Defendant/Objector Tuia`ana Moi for the Tuia`ana Family, Asaua Fuimaono
For Objector
Moea`i Uilata for the Moea`i Family and Defendant Moea`i Family, Aumoeualogo
Salanoa Soli
For Objector
Seigago E. Scanlan, Pro Se
For
Defendant/Objector Tauiliili Pemerika and Objectors Iseulaolemoana S. Sotoa,
Legal Representative of the Estate of
Salofi R. Sotoa, Tuitoga Puailoa Fanene, and Lauma Valoaga V. Moananu,
Charles V. Ala`ilima
For Defendant/Objector Fonoti Tafa`ifa, Afoa L.
Su`esu`e Lutu
These six consolidated actions came regularly for
trial on January 6, 1997, and concern the ownership of certain lands. Plaintiff/claimant
Alai`asa Filifili Mailei for the Alai`asa family (collectively "
The parties orally argued the motions on January
14, 1997. The court took the
motions under advisement and established a schedule for filing further written
arguments on the motions. The court has examined the evidence and weighed
counsel’s oral and written arguments. We will, based on the findings of fact
and for the reasons set forth below, grant the motions to dismiss relating to
lands previously adjudicated by this court as owned by defendant/objector
Fanene Aipopo Laulu for the Fanene Family (collectively "Fanene"),
defendant/objector Fonoti Tafa`ifa (for the Fonoti family) (collectively
“the Fonoti”), defendant/objector Tauiliili Pemerika
(“Tauiliili”), objector Iseulaolemoana S. Sotoa, legal
representative of the Estate of Salofi R. Satoa (“Satoa”),[1]
and the Tuia`ana.[2] We will decline, in our discretion under
T.C.R.C.P. 41(b), to render any judgment with respect to the Moea`i’s
motion to dismiss until the close of all the evidence. We will also order the Alai`asa to pay
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the successful movants, and issue
an order to Alai`asa Filifili and his counsel to show cause why either or both
of them should not be sanctioned for violations of T.C.R.C.P. 11 in prosecuting
these actions. We will not impose
punitive damages.
Findings
of Fact
The land at issue ("parcel A") consists
of approximately 176.85 acres and is located in part of the area known as
Malaeimi on the Island of Tutuila, American Samoa. Parcel A is bounded on the north side in
part by the main east-west public highway and in part by another parcel of land
("parcel B"), comprised of about 62.4 acres, lying between the main
highway and parcel A. The
boundaries on the remaining sides of parcel A are roughly defined by the
neighboring villages of Nu`uuli to the east, Faleniu to the west and Tafuna to
the south.[3] [1ASR3d210]
On June 13, 1995,
The Alai`asa, Tuia`ana, Moea`i and Seigafo titles
are matai of the
On October 27, 1995,
The court consolidated six actions in due
course. Originally, we included LT
No. 26-96 in the consolidation, but later we dismissed this action and referred
the matter to the Land Commission for completion of the administrative process
applicable to the proposed registration of the lease of communal land involved
in that action. On December 30,
1996, we delayed ruling on Alai`asa's motion to set aside the dismissal without
prejudice in 1987 of LT No. 34-81, involving a portion of parcel A and the same
or related parties, and to add this action to the consolidation, pending
developments in the trial scheduled to begin only one week later.
The rulings on these motions to dismiss depend
upon the legal impact of prior judicial decisions and title registrations. Hence, we will only briefly summarize
Alai`asa's evidence during his case-in-chief on the substance of his title
claim.
The Alai`asa presented testimony by several
witnesses that the
We take judicial notice of the decisions of this
court in the consolidated actions in Fanene v. Magalei, LT Nos. 64-77,
74-77, 54-77, 61-74, 60-77, 66-77, 73-77, 1090-90, 62-77, 63-77 and 72-76 (Land
& Titles Div. 1980) ("the 1977 actions"), bearing directly upon
the title to parcel B and various sub-parcels within parcel A. We also take judicial notice of the
decision of this court in the earlier action, Tuutau v. Fanene, Case No.
1-1931 (1932) (“Case No. 1-1931”), dealing definitively with the title
to parcel B. We will relate these
parcels and sub-parcels to exhibit No. 12 or exhibit No. 14, or both, to
particularize our findings for the parties and their counsel.[5]
This court decided in Case No. 1-1931 and
reconfirmed in the 1977 actions that the Fanene own parcel B as communal
land. Parcel B is shown on exhibit
No. 12 as containing approximately 62 acres and on exhibit No. 14 as containing
approximately 62.4 acres. Parcel B
is registered with the Territorial Registrar as the Fanene’s communal
land.
This court also adjudicated ownership of our
designated sub-parcels of parcel A in the 1977 actions, as follows:
1. Sub-parcel
A-1. The Fanene were awarded as
communal land the area to the east of parcel B. This area is displayed on exhibit 14,
marked parcel "1" and is about 85.402 acres. We cannot ascertain from the evidence
whether the Fanene has registered sub-parcel A-1.
2. Sub-parcel
A-2. The Fanene were awarded as
communal land the area bordering the southwest side of parcel B. This area is depicted on exhibit No. 12
in light blue and on exhibit No. 14 as parcel "2" and encompasses
about 4.418 acres.[6] Leopole, a member of the Fanene, has the
house on [1ASR3d212] sub-parcel A-2
that is the subject of the
3. Sub-parcel
A-3. The Fonoti were awarded as
communal land the area immediately south of sub-parcel A-1.[7] This area is shown on exhibit No.
12 below a solid blue line and is mostly shaded light blue.[8] Sub-parcel A-3 is registered as the
Fonoti’s communal land.
4. Sub-parcel
A-4. Tauiliili owns as
individually owned land the area contiguous to the southwest portion of
sub-parcel A-3. This area is
depicted on exhibit No. 12 in light green and contains approximately 24.4
acres. A portion of sub-parcel A-4
actually lies outside of parcel A.
Sub-parcel A-4 is registered as Tauilili’s individually owned
land.
5. Sub-parcel
A-5. Sotoa was awarded as
individually owned land the area immediately next to the northwest portion of
sub-parcel A-4. This area is
presented on exhibit No. 12 in light yellow and consists of approximately 21.15
acres. Most of sub-parcel A-5 is
registered as Sotoa’s individually owned land.
6. Sub-parcel
A-6. Uiva Te`o, who is not a
party to the present actions, was awarded as individually owned land the area
that borders portions of the west side of sub-parcel A-4 and south side of
sub-parcel A-5. This area is shown
on exhibit No. 12 in light blue. A
small triangular shaped portion at the northeast corner of sub-parcel A-6,
lodged between sub-parcel A-4 [1ASR3d213]
and sub-parcel A-5, is within parcel A. Sub-parcel A-6 is registered as Uiva
Te`o’s individually owned land.
7. Sub-parcel
A-7. The Tuia`ana were awarded as
communal land the area directly adjacent to the northern boundary of sub-parcel
A-5 and to the western boundary of sub-parcel A-2.[9] This area is displayed on exhibit No. 12
unshaded. This area is also shown
on exhibit No. 16. However, it is
not yet clear how the survey in exhibit No. 16 comports with sub-parcel A-8,
identified below. Sub-parcel A-7 is
not registered.
Based on Case No. 1-1931 and the 1977 actions,
this court has adjudicated title to all but one small area within parcel
A. This area is an irregular
crescent shaped area, which we designate as sub-parcel A-8, and is shown on
exhibit No. 12, bounded on the northeasterly side by sub-parcel A-7, on the
south side by sub-parcel A-5, and on the west side by the western boundary of
parcel A, and is partly unshaded and partly shaded light blue. We are also unaware of any title
registration of this area, though Kolone Moea`i
The named parties to Case No. 1-1931 and the 1977
actions and notice given in the 1977 actions are important factual factors in
deciding the motions to dismiss.
"Alaia of Faleniu," representing
"All of the Matai of
Tuana`itau Tuia discussed the 1977 actions with
Pagofie. He was then an
experienced, and is still an active, legal practitioner in land and matai
title judicial controversies. He
testified at the present trial as a member of the
On May 5, 1976, before the Territorial Registrar, the Fanene offered to register the title to the land adjudicated in the 1977 actions.[11] The Territorial Registrar publicly noticed the offer from May 6 to July 7, 1976, a period of 63 days. On July 8, 1976, the Registrar referred the offer to the Secretary of Samoan Affairs for dispute resolution proceedings under 11 A.S.C. 1002 (1973 ed.) (now A.S.C.A. § 43.0302). The list of objectors, including the Faleniu matai, comports with the eventual parties to the 1977 actions. The Secretary, after hearings, issued the jurisdictional certificate of irreconcilable dispute on September 15, 1977, and the matter was referred to this court for judicial determination.
On March 23, 1977, at a pre-trial conference, the parties attending agreed that the court would issue a public notice, distributed among various news media and American Samoa Government offices, of the consolidated cases and trial date on October 3, 1977, and of the parties’ need to register lands by certain dates. The notice was published in the Samoa News and Government News Bulletin at the very least.
Discussion
1. The Procedural Issue
[1ASR3d215]
Movants moved at the close of the
Alai`asa’s case “for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts
and the law [the
The
[1] The court has, as further directed by A.S.C.A. § 3.0242(a), prescribed special rules for land and titles matters. T.C.R.L.T. 1-8. The court has also emulated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as contemplated by A.S.C.A. § 43.0201(a), to govern civil proceedings generally. There is no restriction by either statute or court rule on using the principles underlying the Federal Rules in land and titles matters. The clear intent of A.S.C.A. § 3.0242 read as a whole, along with A.S.C.A. § 43.0304 on interlocutory orders, is to allow the court flexibility to fashion practice and procedure in land or title cases as will facilitate proper adjudication of these matters, not to absolutely foreclose the use and guidance of the concepts of the Federal Rules.
[2] The Land and Titles Division has previously adopted the principle
underlying T.C.R.C.P. 41(b) and stated that “justice and convenience
[are] disserved by requiring the many defendants in this case to present
evidence and arguments in the slim hope that the plaintiff’s case would
be struck by the evidentiary equivalent of lightning.” See Willis
v. Fai`ivae, 10 A.S.R.2d 121, 140-142 (Land & Titles Div. 1986). We
find no basis for disregarding this precedent. The
2. The Constitutional
Protection of Land [1ASR3d216]
Article I, section 3, of the
Revised Constitution of American Samoa shields Samoans from “alienation
of their land and destruction of the Samoan way of life and language.” This
constitutional policy has unwaveringly endured the entire 97-year history of
The Alai`asa seek to enlist this
constitutional provision to support their land claims in this case, and argue
that article I, section 3, commands the court to review land disputes with a
biased eye in favor of communal land claims and against claims of individual
ownership. They suggest that the
constitutional provision mandates that the court presume all land to be
communal land, and to “shift the burden” of persuasion to those
with claims of individual ownership.
The Alai`asa would have us award sub-parcel A-4 and sub-parcel A-5 to
the
[3] While we concur that article I, section 3, is an important statement of policy, we find nothing in that constitutional provision which prohibits the alienation of communal land to other Samoans, nor limits the categories of Samoan land ownership. The concept of individually owned land was introduced by Samoans, see Fania v. Sipili, 14 A.S.R.2d 70, 71-72 (Land & Titles Div. 1990), condoned by the High Court, see Puailoa v. Estate of Lagafuaina, 19 A.S.R.2d 40, 46 (App. Div. 1991), and continuously sanctioned by the Legislature of American Samoa via statute since at least 1949. See A.S.C. § 905 (1949 ed.); A.S.C. §§ 9.0103, 10.0112, 12.0201 (1961 ed.); 27 A.S.C. §§ 402, 1201 (1974 ed.); A.S.C.A. §§ 37.0101, 37.1502 (1981 ed.); A.S.C.A. §§ 37.0101, 37.1502 (1992 ed.)
[4] Like all custom and cultures, Samoan custom and culture is fluid, alive, evolving, and adapting to changing conditions. Samoan society has accepted individually owned land as a legitimate form of ownership in the twentieth century. Therefore, we reject the proposition that individually owned land is inconsistent with article I, section 3, of the Revised Constitution, refuse to adopt in land disputes any requirement of “burden shifting” to the detriment of those with claims of individual [1ASR3d217] ownership of Samoan land, and decline to contradict precedent and to effectively abolish individual ownership of land.
Instead, we turn to two other legal principles that are determinative in this case.
3. Res Judicata
[5] The
[6] A judgment in a prior case, between the same parties, or those in privity with them, and involving the same land title issue, is res judicata and therefore binds the parties and the court, notwithstanding the losing party’s contention that the judgment did not accord with Samoan custom. Aoelua v. Tela, 10 A.S.R.2d 20 (Land & Titles Div. 1989), aff’d 12 A.S.R.2d 40 (App. Div. 1989); Puailoa v. Estate of Lagafuaina, 12 A.S.R.2d 84, 85 (Land & Titles Div. 1986), aff’d 19 A.S.R.2d 40, 46 (App. Div. 1991).
[7] Arguments that the prior decision was contrary to custom and violative of treaty either were or should have been presented to the court deciding that case, and it would be totally contrary to the principles of finality underlying the judicial process to relitigate a matter that has [1ASR3d218] already been fully litigated. Tela v. Aoelua, 12 A.S.R.2d 40, 42 (App. Div. 1989)
[8-9] The
Second, the
[10-11] Contrary to the Alai`asa’s assertion, no statute or
judicial decision requires that the sa’o personally appear and
defend claims against the family’s communal land. Any family member can
object to title registrations and defend the family’s interests in
land. Tavaseu v. Paulo, 3 A.S.R.2d 97, 98 (App. Div. 1986). Here the Alai`asa’s interests were
represented in the 1977 actions by the matai of Faleniu village and by
his sister Fanoia Alai`asa Pagofie.
Moreover, Fanoia was then advised by Tuana`itau Tuia, who was and is a
member of the
Lastly, the
Thus, the A1ai`asa’s
arguments that somehow res judicata does not apply in the present actions
are specious at best. The principle is applicable and protects the property
interests in parcel B awarded the Fanene in Case No. 1-1931 and reconfirmed in
the 1977 actions, and in sub-parcel A-1 and sub-parcel A-2 awarded to the
Fanene, in sub-parcel A-3 awarded to the Fonoti, in sub-parcel A-4 awarded to
Tauiliili, in sub-parcel A-S awarded to Sotoa, and in sub-parcel A-6 awarded to
Uiva Te’o in the 1977 actions. “There must be an end to litigation
someday . . . .” Puailoa
v. Estate of Lagafuaina, 19 A.S.R.2d 40, 47 (App. Div. 1991) and Nouata v,
Pasene, 1 A.S.R.2d 24, 35 (App. Div. 1980) (both quoting Ackerman v.
United States, 340
4. Waiver of
Claims
[12-13] The 1977 actions arose out of the Fanene’s offer on May 5, 1976, to register 265.9 acres of the land as the Fanene’s communal land. This acreage coincides approximately with parcel A and parcel B combined. The purpose of title registration, pursuant to A.S.C.A. §§ 37.0101-37.0111, is to record the ownership of surveyed land for the world to know. Registration has in rem effect, and any claimant who fails to object to the offer of registration by the end of the 60-day notice period prescribed by A.S.C.A. § 37.0103 loses his claim and is forever [1ASR3d220] bound by the subsequent registration, in the absence of fraud or similar circumstances. Tufono v. Vaeao, 13 A.S.R.2d 47, 48 (Land & Titles Div. 1989); Pefu v. Sipili, 14 A.S.R.2d 70, 77 (Land & Titles Div. 1990).
[14] Once again we take note that the Faleniu matai timely
objected to the Fanene’s proposed title registration. However, assuming
that the Alai`asa sa`o in 1976-1977 is not included in Faleniu matai’s
number, the Alai`asa’s failure to object within the 60-day notice
period resulted in the Alai`asa’s waiver and loss of any claim they had
to the all portions of parcel A within the 265.9 acres. Tufono, 13 A.S.R.2d at 48. The Alai`asa sa`o’s absence
from
5. Attorney’s
Fees and Costs and Rule 11 Sanctions
The Aiai’asa have initiated litigation by these consolidated actions challenging the previously adjudicated ownership of large parcels of land. Most of the owners awarded these lands have also registered title to their lands. The Alai`asa’s causes of action were without merit ab initio. They have created clouds on the owners’ titles and disparaged the court’s decisions, at least for the duration of this litigation. Their actions have seriously disrupted the order intended under our land tenure system. They have wasted judicial resources. They have caused the landowners considerable and enduring emotional distress and expenditure of substantial and unnecessary time and money in defending their titles. [1ASR3d221]
The undesirable effects of relitigating claims are unnecessary. They are readily avoidable if attorneys and their clients thoroughly research and clearly think through the issues. We need to send a message to attorneys and their clients that this kind of litigation is inappropriate and will bring serious consequences.
[15] A party is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s
fees and actual costs from a claimant who unsuccessfully relitigates land
titles. See Taulaga v.
Patea, 4 A.S.R.2d 186, 187 (Land & Titles
Div. 1987). Hence, we will direct
the
We will also address the motion for sanctions upon an attorney or a party for violations of the standards established by T.C.R.C.P. 11(b), which states, in relevant part:
(b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court . . . a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney . . . is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, - -
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable inquiry; . . . .
Rule 11(c) allows and provides procedures for imposition of the sanctions, including monetary sanctions. When sanctions are proposed on the court’s initiative, the attorney or party at risk must be given an opportunity to show cause why Rule 11(b) was not violated.
[16] We believe that there is sufficient evidence of possible
violations of Rule 11(b)(1), (2), or (3) to warrant an order to show cause
against Alai`asa Filifili and his counsel.
Even though it is the attorney whose signature violates Rule 11, it may
be appropriate under the circumstances of the case to impose sanctions on a
client. See Browning Debenture
Holders Committee v. DASA Corp., 560 F.2d 1078 (2d Cir. 1977). After a hearing on this issue, we will
decide what, if any, sanctions are appropriate. We give notice to Alai`asa
Filifili and his counsel, however, that if we find that sanctions are in order,
we will seriously consider [1ASR3d222] holding both of them
jointly and severally liable for the amount of the attorney’s fees and
costs set by the court as payable by the Alai`asa.[18]
Order
1. We reconfirm the Fanene’s title as communal land to parcel B, as awarded in Case No, 1-1931 and reconfirmed in the 1977 actions. We also reconfirm the Fanene’s title as communal land to sub-parcel A-1 and sub-parcel A-2, the Fonoti’s title as communal land to sub-parcel A-3, Tauiliili’s title as individually owned land to sub-parcel A-4, Sotoa’s title as individually owned land to sub-parcel A-5, Uiva Te`o’s title as individually owned land to sub-parcel A-6, and the Tuia`ana’s title as communal land to sub-parcel A-7, as awarded in the 1977 actions.
2. We dismiss LT Nos. 76-90, 77-90, 78-90, and 14-96 with prejudice as these actions relate to parcel B, sub-parcel A-1, sub-parcel A-2, sub-parcel A-3, sub-parcel A-4, sub-parcel A-5, and sub-parcel A-7. These dismissals operate as an adjudication on the merits against the Alai`asa on their claim, if any, to register the title as communal land to parcel B, and on their claim to register the title as communal land to these sub-parcels within parcel A, and in favor of the Fanene, the Fonoti, Tauiliili, and Sotoa, and the Tuia`ana on their respective titles to these lands. Dismissal is unnecessary as to sub-parcel A-6, since Uiva Te`o is not a party to any of these actions.
3. The Territorial Registrar shall register sub-parcel A-1 and sub-parcel A-2, shown respectively as “Parcel 1” and “Parcel 2” in the surveys on exhibit No. 14, in the Fanene’s name as communal land, in accordance with A.S.C.A. § 37.0104(b) and (c). For this purpose, the Fanene shall provide the Registrar with a copy of Survey Drawing No. 784-8-94 (exhibit No. 14), and shall ensure that the surveyor has placed boundary monuments on the land and has certified that the survey complies with all requirements provided by the laws and administrative rules of American Samoa. The Fanene shall pay all costs associated with the survey and registration. [1ASR3d223]
4. We will not direct the Territorial Registrar to register sub-parcel A-7 in the Tuia`ana’s name as communal land at this time. The Tuia`ana shall, at their expense, file with the court a survey that depicts sub-parcel A-7, complies with all statutory and regulatory survey requirements, and clearly defines the boundaries of sub-parcel A-7 in relation to sub-parcel A-2, sub-parcel A-8 and any other adjacent parcels of land.
5. We dismiss LT No. 12-90 with
prejudice, the action involving the Leopole’s alleged encroachment on
sub-parcel A-2. This dismissal
operates as an adjudication on the merits against the
6. We dismiss LT No. 25-96 with prejudice. This action is now moot.
7. We defer ruling on the motions to dismiss LT Nos. 76-90, 77-90, 78-90, and 14-96 insofar as these actions relate to sub-parcel A-8, until the close of all the evidence, and will then render a judgment on the issues presented. The trial on these actions with respect to any claims to sub-parcel A-8 by the Alai’asa, the Tuia`ana, the Moea`i, the Seigafo, or any other party will reconvene on September 8, 1997, at 9:00 a.m.
8. We further postpone the Alai`asa’s motion to set aside the dismissal without prejudice of LT No. 34-81, pending the close of all the evidence relating to sub-parcel A-8.
9. We award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs that the Aiai’asa must pay the Fanene, the Fonoti, Tauiliili, Sotoa, and the Tuia`ana. We will conduct a hearing on August 18, 1997, at 9:00 a.m., on the amount of these attorney’s fees and costs. We direct Alai`asa Filifili and the Alai`asa’s counsel, Tautai A.F. Faalevao, to appear at that hearing to show cause, if any they have, why either or both of them should not be sanctioned for violations of T.C.R.C.P. 11(b)(1), (2), or (3) in prosecuting these actions.
10. We deny the Fanene’s
request for punitive damages against the
It is so Ordered.
*********
[1] The caption in LT No. 14-96 originally named Salofi R. Sotoa, who is deceased, as a party. His estate, by Iseulaolemoana S. Sotoa as legal representative, actually filed the objection with the Territorial Registrar. Accordingly, on our own motion, we corrected the caption in LT No. 14-96 to reflect these facts.
[2] We note for counsel’s benefit that based on out analysis of the motions to dismiss, in hindsight at least, these movants could have prevailed on motions for summary judgment. Although the motions for summary judgment would require elaborate documentary support in these actions, the motions would have avoided several days of trial.
[3] The Malaeimi area also extends to the north from
the main east-west public highway and is bounded there by the villages of
Nu`uuli to the east, Faleniu to the west and Fagasa to the north. Malaeimi was once but is no longer
legally recognized as a village. Matai of the four surrounding villages
and Faleniu assert from time to time claims affecting Malaeimi, and the precise
traditional boundaries of these villages and Malaeimi are still uncertain. See Puailoa v. Estate of Lagafuaina,
12 A.S.R.2d 54 (Land & Titles Div. 1989).
[4] When
LT No. 25-95 was filed, objector Moea`i Uliata was deceased. He was the head matai or sa`o
of the Moea`i family when LT No. 77-90 was filed. The family has not selected the
successor sa`o.
[5] We
are not definitively defining boundaries by metes and bounds, or by other
means, through our references to exhibits Nos. 12 and 14. We immediately have before us neither
issues over any existing boundary disputes among the parties nor adequate
evidence to decide any such controversies.
[6] The
Alai`asa also claims this specific area as communal land in LT No. 78-90, as
well as part of Parcel "A" as a whole in LT No. 14-96. This area contains 4.41 acres according
to the survey filed in LT No. 78-90.
See exhibit No. 4A.
[7] We do not approximate the size of the Fonoti's
award from the evidence before us.
The Fonoti claimed approximately 34.04 acres in LT No. 61-77, 4.33 acres
in LT No. 66-77, and 46.79 acres in LT No. 60-77, a total of 79.04 acres, but
were awarded a slightly lesser amount when the court found that Fanene and the
Fagaima family owned portions of the 34.04 acres.
[8] The solid blue boundary line between sub-parcel
A-1 and sub-parcel A-3 was established by agreement between the Fanene and the
Fonoti. See exhibit No.
13. Apparently, the Fonoti have
registered only the shaded light blue area in sub-parcel A-3 with the
Territorial Registrar. A small
triangular area near the northwest corner of the Fonoti's registered land
apparently conflicts with the agreement reached by the Fanene and the Fonoti. A larger area at the west end of the
Fonoti's registered land overlaps with Sotoa's registered land (our designated
sub-parcel A-5). Another larger
area at the southwest end of the Fonoti's registered land overlaps with
Tauiliili's registered land (our designated sub-parcel A-4). These mutually encroaching areas are
depicted on exhibit No. 12. As
previously indicated, however, we are not presently examining overlay issues.
[9] The
Alai`asa also separately claim as communal land in LT Nos. 76-90 and 77-90 two
specific plots that coincide at least partially with this area. The first plot, containing about 4.16
acres per the survey filed in LT No. 76-90, lies across and appears to be
entirely within the northern part of this area. See exhibits Nos. 3 and 3A. The second plot, containing about 2.98
acres per the survey filed in LT No. 77-90, lies across but appears to extend
beyond the southern part of this area.
See exhibits Nos. 5 and 5A.
Part of this area lies between the first and second plots and appears to
contain several more acres. The two
plots and the part in between are included in Alai`asa's entire claim in LT No.
14-96, which we have designated as Parcel A.
[10] Pagofie was a party in Tuia`ana v. Pagofie, LT
No. 34-81, which this court dismissed without prejudice in 1987, on its own
motion, for lack of prosecution. LT
No. 34-81 generally dealt with the land in sub-parcel A-6 and sub-parcel A-7,
and dismissal of LT No. 34-81 could result in a favorable ruling for Tuia`ana
in any subsequent title litigation.
Hence, the
[11] The offer was for 265.9 acres. Again, however, we are not presently dealing with precise acreage and are not making any attempt to equate the adjudicated acreage with the actual size of either this offer, parcel A, or parcel A and parcel B combined.
[12] Section 3.0242(b) reads:
In any matter of practice or procedure not provided f
or, or where the strict compliance with any rule of practice or procedure may
be inequitable or inconvenient, the land and titles division may act in each
case in such manner as it considers to be most consistent with natural justice
and convenience.
[13]
While the
[14] In spite of the fact that much of this land is
already registered, the Territorial Registrar accepted the Alai`asa’s
offer to registration. The
Territorial Registrar should not process a proffered title registration if the
title to the land is already registered.
See the consolidated cases Uilata v. Puailoa, LT Nos.
8-87, 1-91, 39-93, 1-94, and 14-95, Order Remanding Matter to Land Commission
and Denying Permission to File Survey with Registrar at 7 (Land & Titles
Div. Oct. 17, 1996); A.S.C.A. § 37.0101(a). We cannot, however, fault the Registrar
in this instance. Frankly, we probably misled the Registrar when we signed the
stipulated order in LT No. 25-95, authorizing
[15] Alai`asa Filifili and all present Alai`asa family
members are clearly in privity with the Alai`asa who were parties to Case No.
1-1931. Apparently, the
[16]
Alternatively, the
Nonetheless,
considering the issue raised by a Rule 60(b) motion, for discussion purposes,
the Alai`asa’s contention for relief still falls short. The only basis
for relief under Rule 60(b) is the suggestion that somehow Tuia`ana Moi
committed fraud while representing the Faleniu rnatai in the 1977
actions. Aside from the lack of any
evidence of fraud, intrinsic or extrinsic, a Rule 60(b) motion on this ground
must be made not more than one year after the judgment was entered. One year has long since past since the
judgment was entered in the 1977 actions.
The
[17] Because we are rejecting the Alai`asa’s claim
to ownership of parcel A, two otherwise important issues are moot for purposes
of this order but should be noted.
First, the movants raised and the
Second, the
[18] We cannot consider the imposition of the punitive
damages the Fanene seeks against the