ARONA GABRIEL and SULI
GABRIEL, Plaintiffs,
v.
FA`ANUNUMI PIPILI and
THE ESTATE
OF FALEFIA ENE,
Defendants.
High Court of
Land and Titles Division
LT No. 12-97
October 29, 1998
Before KRUSE, Chief Justice,
ATIULAGI, Associate Judge, and SAGAPOLUTELE, Associate Judge.
Counsel: For Plaintiffs, Afoafouvale L. Su`ese`e Lutu
For
Defendant Fa`anunumi
For Defendant Estate of Falefia Ene, Charles V.
Ala`ilima [2ASR3d228]
[1] Buyer-plaintiffs
entitled to specific performance of property where written contract executed
and buyer-plaintiffs fully performed, despite fact that deed never signed nor
delivered prior to seller’s death.
[2] In
[3] Under
[4] Where spouse of deceased attempted to convey
deceased’s real property in violation of Statute of Frauds and Descent and
Distribution Statute, transaction had no force or effect against the estate but
spouse obligated to refund purchase monies received.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Arona Gabriel
and Suli Gabriel (“The Gabriels”) brought this action against Fa`anunumi Pipili
(“Pipili”) and the Estate of Falefia Ene to retain title to two pieces of
property located in Tafuna. Trial for
this action began on October 9, 1998.
Discussion
I. First Half Acre
Findings of Fact
On November 2, 1993, the
Gabriels entered into an agreement of sale with Falefia Ene (“Ene”) for
approximately .526 acres of “Tiatuloto” for $40,000. This agreement is part of the record marked
Exhibit “1.” Before Ene died on or about
July 29, 1996, the Gabriels paid the full purchase price to Ene. A deed of conveyance, however, was yet to be
signed and delivered to the Gabriels.
Despite the absence of a deed, the court finds that a written agreement
for sale and purchase was concluded between Ene and the Gabriels. In addition, the court finds that the
Gabriels fully performed their part of the bargain by paying the $40,000
purchase price.
Conclusions of Law
[1] We, therefore, decree
specific performance directing the Estate of Falefia Ene to issue a deed to the
Gabriels in accordance with the parties agreement for sale and purchase marked
Exhibit “1.” The court notes that the
deed Pipili purported to issue to the Gabriels to these ends is of [2ASR3d229] no effect against the
estate since Pipili had no title to convey.
II. Second Half Acre
Findings of Fact
The Gabriels base their
claim for the additional $10,000 half acre on an alleged oral contract between
Ene and themselves. The Gabriels claim
that Ene offered to them the additional half-acre for the sum of $10,000. The Gabriels claim acceptance of the offer by
paying the requisite $10,000 to Ene’s wife, Pipili, after Ene’s unexpected
death. Pipili subsequently executed a
warranty deed.
Conclusions of Law
[2] The court holds that
any oral contract between the Gabriels and Ene is unenforceable. Under
[3] Although the court
finds that Pipili asked for and received from the Gabriels the sum of $10,000
which she acknowledged at the insistence of the Gabriels as payment of the
second half acre, this subsequent transaction is a nullity against the
estate. Under this territory’s Descent
and Distribution Statute, court approval is required for the conveyance of any
estate real property. A.S.C.A. §
40.0323(a).
[4] Pipili had no such
court authorization. As such, Pipili’s
attempt to deal in estate lands is of no force and effect whatsoever against
the estate. We reject any claim by the Gabriels for full performance by the
estate on the basis of Pipili’s unauthorized action. The court, therefore, denies specific
performance.
Pipili, however, did
attempt to provide a warranty deed for lands which she had no title. Judgment, therefore, will enter against
Pipili in favor of the Gabriels for $10,000. [2ASR3d230]
III. Right Of Way
The Estate concedes an
easement by necessity and plaintiff has stipulated in open court that this
issue has been settled with the estate.
Order
The Clerk will enter
judgment herein, to be prepared by counsel for the estate, in accordance with
the foregoing.
It is so Ordered.
**********
[1] A.S.C.A.
§ 37.0211 provides that:
No agreement
for the sale of real property or of any interest therein is valid unless the
same, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing and subscribed by the
party to be charged or his agent thereunto authorized in writing but this does
not abridge the power of the court to compel the specific performance of any
agreement fort he sale of real property in case of part performance.