LAIE K. MATAUTIA, Plaintiff
v.
POGISA
TUIOLEMOTO, as Administrator of the
ESTATE OF
TUIVETA MISA, and
AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT, and Defendants
High Court of
Land and Titles Division
LT No. 56-92
[1]
Although hearsay evidence of family history and tradition is routinely admitted
on land title issues, without corroboration it is regarded as inherently weak
evidence.
[2]
A customary assignment of communal land does not change the character of the
land from communal land to individually owned land. [3ASR3d201]
[3]
In the Samoan communal land system, typically only the sa`o has the right to
lease his family’s communal lands to non-family members.
[4]
Where individual, in possession of assigned family communal land, took the time
and effort necessary to negotiate terms of lease of land with government, was
responsible for facilitating the lease transactions, and where lease of land to
government was inevitable and resulted in displacement of individual, and where
individual’s actions were not an attempt to exploit family’s communal land,
individual was entitled to compensation.
[5] Although
sa`o of family normally determines equitable distribution of monies, including
compensation to displaced assignee family members, where history of acrimony
existed between party family members, and traditional intrafamily processes
would likely be frustrated, it was proper for Court to determine distribution
of monies.
Before
Counsel: For Plaintiff, Gata
E. Gurr
For Defendant Pogisa Tuiolemoto, as
Administrator of the
Estate of Tuiveta Misa, Arthur Ripley, Jr.
For Defendant
Crenwelge-Siofle, Assistant Attorney General
OPINION AND ORDER
On
November 24, 1992, plaintiff Laie K. Matautia (“Laie”) brought this action
against Tuiveta Misa (“Tuiveta”) to quiet title to certain land within the
boundaries of the Fitiuta Airport as the Laie family’s communal land; to
permanently enjoin Tuiveta from claiming rental payments by defendant American
Samoa Government (“ASG”) for and signing any legal documents involving the
land; to preliminarily enjoin ASG from releasing any rental payments for the
land to Tuiveta, and Tuiveta from receiving and using any such payments; and to
establish a trust account for the accrued rental payments. On
Discussion
A. Parties to the Action
Tuiveta died
on
B. Ownership of the Land
Two parcels
of land, totaling approximately 2.625 acres, are at issue. The two parcels are
located within the boundaries of the public Fitiuta Airport, designated as Lot
11 and Lot N in ASG’s amended map of the airport, Drawing No. 1863 “B”, in the
Village of Fitiuta on the Island of Ta`u in the Manu’a Islands.
On
The two
issues now before the court are: (1) the ownership of
The
protagonists, Laie and Pogisa for Tuiveta, gave us their respective versions of
the oral family history and traditions pertaining to
[1] These two versions of the title origin are
diametrically opposed and based on hearsay.
While we routinely admit hearsay evidence of family history and
tradition on land title issues, it is inherently weaker evidence without
corroboration. See Tupuola v.
Moali`itele, 1 A.S.R.2d 80, 81 (1983).
Confirming circumstances in this case preponderate in Laie’s favor.
Laie and Pogisa
agreed that Tuiveta was a blood member of the Laie family. The blood relationship stems from the
marriage of Tuiveta’s grandfather Leafu Misa to Faioa, a daughter of the Laie
Alalaie. In re Ivfatai “Laie”, 18 A.S.R.2d 35, 38 (1991) confirms the
blood connection by recognizing that Tuiveta’s father Laie Misa briefly held
but did not register the Laie title, probably during the 1920s. Tuiveta himself further confirmed the
connection when he testified in the In re Matai Title “Laie” trial. Tuiveta Tr. at 4-5.[4]
Laie and
Pogisa also agreed that Tuiveta held the matai title “Tuiveta.” Pogisa
connected this title to the Taaga family of Fitiuta. Laie did likewise in his
pleadings, see Complaint para. 3, but he testified that he now
understands that “Tuiveta” is a lesser matai of the Laie family. Tuiveta
testified in the In re Matai Title “Laie” trial that for over 30 years
he held the “Tuiveta” title in the Laie family, serving Laie Aniva and Laie
Taulago. Tuiveta Tr. at l7-20.[5] Under the evidence, the “Tuiveta” title
belongs to the Laie family. Tuiveta held
this title for many years and served the two “Laie” titleholders immediately
before [3ASR3d205] the court awarded
the title in In re Matai Title “Laie” to Laie in 1991.[6]
Lot 11 and
Lot N are located within the
[2] The most
reasonable explanation for Tuiveta’s occupancy and cultivation of Lot 11 and
Lot N is that the sa`o Laie Alalaie made a customary assignment of the
use of the Laie family’s communal land encompassing these lots to Tuiveta’s
grandfather Misa Leafu and/or Laie Alalaie’s daughter Faioa after Misa Leafu
married Faioa and into the Laie family.
A customary assignment of communal land does not change the character of
the land from communal land to individually owned land. Fagasoaia v. Fanene,
18 A.S.R.2d 72 (Land & Titles Div. 1991). Pogisa referred to events and other factors
in an attempt to overcome this conclusion. The following are these
considerations deserving discussion.
Pogisa
recognized, as did her father Tuiveta, that the land “Falefasa” is indeed among
the Laie family’s communal lands and is the traditional locale of the family’s faletalimalo
(“guesthouse”). Tuiveta Tr. at 20,
26. Tuiveta also cultivated at least portions of “Falefasa.” Tuiveta Tr. at 20.
Pogisa and her husband Salele`a Tuiolemotu[7]
identified a relatively [3ASR3d206] small
rectangular area, about 100 feet by 225 feet, as “Falefasa.” Lot N lies along
the westerly side of this area for approximately 148 feet. The site of the
Fitiuta elementary school bounds both the northerly and easterly sides of this
area. Pogisa claimed that the school site was also part of the land “Maluatia.”
The school site and Lot N are disconnected. Thus, though the surveyed airport
lots substantially vary in size and many are irregularly shaped, the school
site is next to and far more logically associated with the land Pogisa
identified as “Falefasa” than with an otherwise remote Lot N.
Pogisa
sought to reaffirm the Misa family’s individual ownership of the school site,
Lot 11, and Lot N as parts of the land “Maluatia” by further declaring that,
during Laie Aniva’s tenure and without his objection, the Fitiuta Village
Council selected and Tuiveta dedicated the original school site, and that,
during Laie Taulago’s tenure and without his objection, Tuiveta dedicated an
area to expand the school site. Laie partially countered this point by claiming
that Laie Aniva died in 1955, that the Laie title was vacant when the original
dedication was made in 1959, and that Tuiveta’s decision to dedicate land for
the school site was acceptable within the family during the sa`o vacancy.
Pogisa also
pointed out that Laie Taulago did not object when the airport land transactions
were negotiated and consummated in 1987-1988.
She further stated that Tuiveta received the damages paid by ASG for the
crops on
Laie also
pointed out that while he headed operations in the Manu’a Islands for ASG’s
Department of Public Works, he had cinders excavated from the land “Falefasa”
for road construction work with Laie Taulago’s permission. Tuiveta objected and
was told by Laie to take up the matter with Laie Taulago, but Tuiveta never
returned to Laie and the project continued for about two months.
Pogisa’s
first cousin Uila Faaoso (“Uila”) testified that her father Upega Misa
(“Upega”), Tuiveta’s brother, leased another portion of the land “Maluatia” for
the airport, designated as Lot P on the amended airport map. Lot P appears to
include an area that directly connects
Laie
presented three witnesses who supported his contention that
We do not
find any of the events and other factors cited by Pogisa persuasive as support
for Tuiveta’s claim that he and the Misa family own Lot 11 or Lot N
individually, or Pogisa’s present claim that the Estate owns these lots
individually. Rather we find that these events and other factors tend to be
more indicative of the longstanding and destructive rivalry and disharmony
within the Laie family generally and respecting land particularly. The claim of
Tuiveta, and of Pogisa on behalf of the Estate, of individual ownership of
C. Entitlement to the Rent
[3] In the
Samoan communal land system, typically only the sa`o has the right to
lease his family’s communal lands to non-family members, and even his rights in
this regard are subject to certain restrictions and limitations.[9] In arriving at this conclusion, we begin with
the general rule as articulated by the court in Sagapolutele v. Tala`i: “It is trite law that the
senior matai has pule or control over
family lands and that in his or her capacity as the matai may assign or
designate a piece of family land for the use of individual family members.” 20 A.S.R.2d
16, 17 (Land & Titles Div. 1991). While leasing land to a third party
could theoretically be seen as a kind of “use” of the land, the court has
further defined this requirement as including “actual use and occupancy
of such land.” Toleafoa v.
Tiapula, 7 A.S.R.2d 117, 122 (Land & Titles Div. 1988) (emphasis
added). A family assignee’s failure to occupy his or her assigned parcel
results in relinquishment of possession and causes a reversion of the land back
to the sa`o and family.[10]
In cases
involving leases of communal lands to non-family members, the court’s holdings
have been consistent with the notion that such leases may only be arranged by
or with the consent of the sa`o, on behalf of the entire family. In Sagapolutele, the court held that an individual family member’s lease
of his assigned communal land to a third party for purposes of establishing a
grocery business was a “clear attempt to usurp the matai’s pule,” and noted
that individual family members other than the sa`o have “no authority to
permit strangers to live on communal lands.” 20 A.S.R.2d at 17, citing Lolo v.
The Heirs of Sekio, 4 A.S.R.2d 477, 481 (Trial Div. 1964). Similarly, in Fagasoaia v. Fanene, the
court was confronted with a defendant who had constructed a warehouse on
communal lands and had leased the structure to a non-family member against the
will of the sa`o. The
court found the lease to be invalid, confirming that “[a] family member’s right
to live on family land does not include a right to build supermarkets,
warehouses, and parking lots [3ASR3d209]
on it and rent these out to strangers.” 18 A.S.R.2d 72, 73 (Land &
Titles Div. 1991).[11]
In this
case, having determined that Lot 11 and Lot N are part of the Laie family’s
communal land “Falefasa,” the lease of those lots should have been arranged
with the consent of then-sa`o Laie Taulago.
Furthermore, the title to these lots remains with the Laie family, and
all rents from the lease should ordinarily be turned over to Laie as the
current sa`o for the benefit of the entire family. This case, however, presents several unique
considerations which lead us to conclude that the Estate is nevertheless
entitled to some portion of the rental revenues.
[4]
Irrespective of our conclusion that Lot 11 and Lot N are the Laie family’s
communal land, Tuiveta, as the family assignee in possession of these lots,
took the time and effort necessary to negotiate the terms of the lease, and
generally was the person responsible for facilitating the lease transactions.
More importantly, however, the very nature of this lease differs significantly
from the leases at issue in the cases cited infra. In both the Sagapolutele
and Fagasoaia cases, the defendants had arranged for leases allowing
non-family businesses to occupy their assigned property, deliberately
attempting to turn a profit from their exploitation of the family’s communal
land. Here, though, the land was urgently needed by ASG for construction of the
In effect,
therefore, the Misa family has been dispossessed from a portion of the Laie
family’s communal land which all parties agree that it has occupied for many
years. In the best possible scenario,
Tuiveta would have originally recognized Lot 11 and Lot N to be communal land,
Laie Taulago would have negotiated the lease on behalf of the entire Laie
family, and the Misa family would have been compensated for losing some of
their assigned land, either by the assignment of other l[3ASR3d210] and or by receiving a portion of the rental proceeds
from the lease. See I`auloualo v.
Siofaga, 14 A.S.R.2d 26, 27-28 (Land & Titles Div. 1990) (when a
family member who has done no wrong has been evicted from family communal lands
he has been occupying, “it is essential that the family member be compensated
by the assignment of equivalent lands”). We would now ideally return all the rent
payments in escrow to Laie and leave the equitable distribution of such
monies—including fair compensation to the Estate—to him as the sa`o.
[5] However,
the unfortunate history of acrimony between these parties, arising even before
the title dispute recorded in In re Matai Title “Laie”, which was filed
in 1990, leads us to believe that such cooperative intrafamily processes would
likely be frustrated in the near term.
Any immediate compensation to the Estate must therefore be fashioned by
the court. Accordingly, we will direct that, as fair and equitable
compensation, two-thirds of the rent from the lease accrued as of the entry
date of this order shall be paid to the Estate, and that the balance of the
accrued rent and all future rent shall be paid to Laie or to his successors in
the office of the Laie family sa`o.[12]
This
provision for compensation to the Estate should be viewed merely as a safeguard
of sorts and is not intended to displace the traditional family process for
allocation of resources. As required both by law and Samoan custom, Laie and
his successors are expected to use the rents paid to him for the benefit of the
entire Laie family, including appropriate members of the Misa family, perhaps
by assigning replacement communal land or by sharing the future rent payments,
but at least by some other proper means. Such gesture by Laie may go a great
distance towards reducing the hostility which has characterized the
relationship between these parties far too long.
Order
1.
2. ASG shall
pay any rent for the lease of
3. ASG shall pay all rent accruing
after the entry date of this order to the [3ASR3d211]
sa`o of the Laie family. For this purpose, a constructive trust is
imposed on all rent for the lease of Lot 11 and Lot N accruing after the entry
date of this order, with ASG as the trustee and Laie or his successor sa`o as
the beneficiary, until a new lease with Laie or his successor sa`o as
the lessor is substituted for the existing lease.
It is so Ordered.
**********
[1] The court hearing the motion on
[2] We
are using the lot sizes given in ASG’s map, Drawing 1863 “B”, but note that the
original lease states that
[3] The copy of the lease in evidence does not have the
actual beginning and ending dates appended. The copy of the amendment in evidence also
does not include these dates. No other
evidence of these dates is before us, but again we are not called upon at this
time to resolve this issue. We further note that, with the two options to
extend, the total prospective duration of the lease is 75 years. Leases of communal land are statutorily
limited to 55 years and require the Governor’s approval under A.S.C.A. §
37.0221, but once more, even if we find that the two parcels of land at issue
are communal land, the application of § 37.0221 to the lease, as amended, is
not now an issue before us.
[4] The court awarded the matai title “Laie” to
Laie in In re Matai Title “Laie”. Both Laie and Tuiveta were among the
several candidates vying for the “Laie” title in that matai title
action. Hence, we take judicial notice
of the court’s file, MT No. 5-90, and the transcript of Tuiveta’s testimony in
that matai title controversy on this point and for other purposes
discussed in this decision. See infra p. 6.
[5] The lease and its amendment refer to Tuiveta as the sa`o
of the Misa family. Pogisa identified a distinct Misa family in Fitiuta
headed by the holder of the “Misa” matai title. In his affidavit filed
for the preliminary injunction hearing in this action, Tuiveta also
acknowledged that there is a Misa family in Fitiuta, but he clearly stated that
he signed the lease and amendment only as the head of the nuclear Misa family
descending directly from Misa Leafu. Tuiveta Aff. at 1. Pogisa also pointed out
that Tuiveta was a blood member of the Taaga family of Fitiuta, as well as the
Laie family.
[6] We take note, however, that the court in In re
Matai Title “Laie” found that Tuiveta did not recognize any of the three
opposing candidates, and accordingly by implication Laie Aniva and Laie
Taulago, as blood members of the Laië family, and that despite his professed
motivation as a title candidate to unite the family, Tuiveta was strong willed
and uncompromising in his attitude on this and other issues. In re Matai Title
“Laie”, 18 A.S.R.2d at 40-41.
[7] Although he was born and raised on the Island of
Tutuila, Salele`a Tuiolemotu learned about lands in Fitiuta from occasional
visits there with Pogisa and his employment with the right-of-way division of
ASG’s Department of Local Government (headed by the Secretary of Samoan
Affairs) as a surveyor’s assistant. He was present during the surveys of the
lots within the Fitiuta airport and participated in determining the damages to
be paid for the loss of crops from the airport construction.
[8] We also want it clearly understood that as a matter
of general principle, and under the facts of this case in particular, a member
of a Samoan family cannot acquire individual title by adverse possession to the
portion of the family’s communal land assigned to him or her. See Utu v. Fuata,
17 A.S.R.2d 104 (Land & Titles Div. 1990).
[9] Such limitations include the general requirements
that he exercise his pule (“power”) for the benefit of family members
and that he not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner with respect to land
assignments or leases. Pen v.
Lavata`i, 25 A.S.R.2d 164, 168 (Land & Titles Div. 1994), aff’d
30 A.S.R.2d 10, 19 (App. Div. 1996).
[10] Note that intent is not a relevant factor in
determining whether a family assignee has relinquished his or her rights to
assigned communal land: “Relinquishment of possession may be either by
voluntary surrender or by abandonment by the family member. While a family
member’s intentions may not have been to abandon the land, the issue of whether
relinquishment has arisen and the matai has effectively taken over to the
exclusion of the family member is one of fact.” Toleafoa,
7 A.S.R. at 122.
[11] While it is true that in some cases individual family
members have been permitted by the court to lease the use of buildings, such
buildings had become the property of the individuals, rather than the family as
a whole, pursuant to a legal separation agreement. See Fagasoaia, 18 A.S.R.2d
72. A separation agreement creates
personal property rights in the building distinct from those in the land
itself, which remains vested in the sa`o on behalf of the family.
A.S.C.A. §§ 37.1501-.1506. With this
exception, however, the general rule that the sa`o controls the
distribution of the family’s communal lands remains our guiding principle.
[12] Similarly, the Court in Fagasoaia divided
lease payments to provide for a $200 per month payment to the plaintiff “as
compensation for the use of land formerly occupied by him.” 17 A.S.R.2d at 95.