FELEI P. MISAALEFUA, LEMAGA F. FAOA, MALAE TITO,
MANU MA`ATIFA ELEASARO, and SUA PUTUGA POTASI,
Appellants
v.
TAUILIILI J. HUDSON, Appellees.
Appellate Division
AP Nos. 09-95, 10-95, 11-95, 12-95, and 13-95
June 6, 1997
[1] Questions of law are
reviewed de novo.
[2] In de novo review, the appellate court must review the record in
light of its own independent judgment without giving special weight to the
prior decision.
[3] The “Satoa
Rule” determines best hereditary right based upon the blood relationship
of the candidates to the original titleholder.
[4] The “Satoa Rule” should not
always be used, but is appropriate where the family traditionally traces the
blood relationship back to the original titleholder, where clans of the family
have not held the title for several generations, or where the family history is
largely harmonious.
[5] In case where family history was unanimous as to the
original titleholder, use of the “Satoa Rule” was less arbitrary
than other methods and was appropriate.
[6] There is no bright line rule regarding de
minimus blood relationships.
[7] A 1/128 blood relationship is not de
minimus when the “Satoa Rule” is used.
[8] Trial Court’s determination of the candidates'
hereditary rankings can only be set aside if clearly erroneous.
[9] Trial Court’s determination of the
family clans can only be set aside if clearly erroneous.
[10] Trial Court’s
determination regarding the support of the majority of the family can only be
set aside if clearly erroneous. [1ASR3d24]
[11] Trial Court’s determination that there
was no majority support for any one candidate was not clearly erroneous where
there was sufficient evidence to support such conclusion.
Before
Counsel: For Appellant Felei P. Misaalefua, Afoa
L. Su'esu'e Lutu
For Appellant Lemaga F. Faoa, Tautai
A.F. Fa`alevao
For Appellant Malae Tito, Charles V.
Ala`ilima
For Appellant Manu Ma`atifa Eleasaro,
Arthur Ripley, Jr.
For Appellant Sua Putuga Potasi, Togiola
T.A. Tulafono
For Appellee, Tuana'itau F. Tuia
OPINION
On August 6, 1993, Appellant Felei P. Misaalefua
("Felei") filed his succession claim to the Misaalefua title with the
Territorial Registrar. His claim
precipitated counterclaims by the appellants Lemaga F. Faoa
("Lemaga"), Malae Tito ("Malae"), Manu Ma`atifa Eleasaro
("Manu"), and Sua Putuga Potasi ("Sua"), and appellee
Tauiliili Hudson ("Tauiliili").
A.S.C.A. § 1.0403 sets forth four criteria to
be considered when deciding a matai title: (1) best hereditary right; (2) wish
of majority or plurality of family; (3) forcefulness, character, personality
and knowledge of Samoan custom; and (4) value of candidate to family, village
and country. After a trial on the
merits, the trial court found that appellant Manu Ma`atifa Eleasaro prevailed
on criterion 1; that no one prevailed on criterion 2; and that Tauiliili
prevailed on criteria 3 and 4. The
court then awarded the title to Tauiliili.
The other candidates appealed.
Each appellant appeals on the ground that the
trial court’s decision as to the various criteria was in error. [1ASR3d25]
A. Best
Hereditary Right
[1-2]
Appellants raise two significant questions of law and one on factual findings
relating to the trial court's decision regarding the best hereditary
right. On appeal questions of law
are reviewed de novo.
A.S.C.A. § 43.0801(b).
[3-4]
As a first question of law, Felei and Lemaga argue that the "Sotoa
rule" should not have been applied in this instance. The Sotoa rule calculates the
blood relationship of the candidate to the original titleholder. In re Matai Title Sotoa, 2
A.S.R.2d 15 (Land & Titles Div. 1984). When the original titleholder is known,
the Sotoa rule can be less arbitrary than the traditional rule. However, the Sotoa rule is only
suited in certain circumstances.
The Sotoa rule is appropriate where, as in Sotoa, the
family traditionally traces the blood relationship back to the original
titleholder. See In re Matai
Title Sotoa at 15; see also In re Matai
Title Tauaifaiva, 5 A.S.R.2d 13, 15 (Land & Titles Div. 1987). Use of the Sotoa rule may also be
appropriate in cases where some clans of the family have not held the title for
several generations, even those its members are entitled to a chance at the
title. See In re
Matai Title Laie, 18 A.S.R.2d 35, 37 (Land
& Titles Div. 1991).[1] Finally, use of the Sotoa rule
may be appropriate where the family history is largely harmonious. See In re
Matai Title Lolo, 25 A.S.R.2d 175, 176 (Land
& Titles Div. 1994).
[5]
The circumstances in this case make the use of the Sotoa rule
appropriate. There is a unanimity
as to the original titleholder in family history due to the recent origin of
the Misaalefua title. Because of
this unanimity, the less arbitrary Sotoa rule is appropriate. Therefore, we hold that the trial court
properly employed the Sotoa rule in ranking the candidates' hereditary
rights.
[6-7]
As a second question of law, Lemaga contends that Tauiliili's 1/128 blood level
is de minimus, and should be discounted entirely. In support of this contention,
appellants rely on dicta in In re Matai Title Faumuina, LT No. 1265-72,
slip op. at 13 (Trial Div. 1973).
This reliance is unfounded for several reasons. First, this language is merely
dicta. Second, the trial court's
decision in Faumuina was reversed and remanded on appeal. Lutali v. Fuamuina, AP. No. 70-73
(App. Div. 1974). Finally, the court
has recognized candidates with a blood relationship as small as 1/4096. See [1ASR3d26] Asuega v.
Manuma, 4 A.S.R. 616, 624 (Trial Div. 1965), aff'd,
4 A.S.R. 947 (App. Div. 1967). We
believe a bright line rule on this issue would be arbitrary, and we decline to
create one by judicial fiat.[2] Moreover, a conclusion that 1/128 is too
tenuous a blood relationship would be particularly inappropriate when using the
Sotoa rule and measuring blood connections to the original titleholder. The appearance of remoteness many
generations later does not diminish the fact of blood connection.
[8]
Sua and Felei dispute the trial court's application of the Sotoa rule,
pointing out the evidentiary conflicts in the candidates' claimed genealogies
from the original Misaalefua. This
contention attacks the trial court's factual findings. Unlike questions of law, this court can
set aside the trial court's findings of fact only if the findings are clearly
erroneous. A.S.C.A. §
43.0801(b). The trial court was in
the unique position to observe each claimant's demeanor on the witness
stand. The trier of fact is in the
best position to determine the weight and accuracy of the testimony. We hold that the trial court's findings
on the candidates' hereditary rankings are sufficient under the clearly
erroneous standard.
B. Wish
of Majority or Plurality of Clan
[9]
The trial court found that there were four clans: Tuimalie, Agafala, Vaepala,
and Faoliu. Lemaga and Sua assert
that this finding is erroneous. We,
however, conclude that the trial court's findings as to the current family
clans was not clearly erroneous.
[10-11] After determining the clans, the court found that no candidate had the
support of the majority or plurality of the clans. Lemaga and Sua argue that the fact that
the trial court found that no one prevailed on criterion 2 is a concrete
indication that the trial court failed to render adequate findings on this
issue. However, Lemaga and Sua fail
to recognize that a finding that there was no majority is an adequate finding
if it is not clearly erroneous. We
believe that the trial court's findings in this regard are sufficient. There was sufficient evidence in the
record indicating that no candidate had the support of the plurality or
majority of the clans.
C. Criteria
3 and 4
Each appellant except Felei disagrees with the
trial court's decision on criterion 3.
All appellants dispute the decision on criterion 4. The trial court found that Tauiliili
factually prevailed on criteria 3 and 4, and we do not find that this decision
was clearly erroneous. Although we
agree that a [1ASR3d27] more detailed
comparison between the candidates would be helpful, we do not believe the
findings are patently insufficient.[3]
For the reasons set forth above, the trial
court's decision is affirmed.
It is so Ordered.
**********
* Honorable Alfred T. Goodwin,
[1] In light of the many recent matai title
decisions which have awarded title to a candidate who did not prevail on best
hereditary right, we question the continued use of the Sotoa rule for
this equitable purpose.
[2] Such
a rule is better left to the legislative process.
[3] We express hope that in future matai
title case, the trial division will better detail the findings and analysis of
these two criteria.