VI`I PITA, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant
v.
MIRIAMA
GARRETT and RICHARD GARRETT,
Defendants/Counterclaimants/Cross-Claimants
v.
TERRITORIAL
REGISTRAR and SURVEY MANAGER
OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEKO AIUMU, Cross-Defendants.
_________________________________
TIMU
LEVALE, on behalf of the TIMU FAMILY, Plaintiff
v.
RAY
McMOORE, SESE McMOORE,
and
IOANE FE`AFE`AGA, Defendants
_________________________________
v.
HEIRS
OF IOANE FE`AFE`AGA ENE, aka MAUGA FE`A ENE, TOLANI TELESO FUGA, ELETISE MATAGI
WOLMAN, [3ASR3d214] SENOUEFA PRITT, TIMU LEVALE, on behalf of the TIMU FAMILY,
RAY McMOORE, SESE McMOORE, aka SESE PEKO SAGAPOLU, VI`I PITA, PEARLITA CANDY
FUAVAI,
TAUINAOLA
LAUAMA, FIALE NIKO, aka SOVITA SUAFO`A, SOVITA LIVING TRUST, MIRIANA GARRETT,
AMERIKA SAMOA BANK, and DOES 1-10, Defendants.
_________________________________
TERRITORIAL
REGISTRAR, on behalf of the
HEIRS
OF IOANE FEAFEAGA ENE, Claimants,
v.
TELESIA
FE`A-FIAME, on behalf of the FE`A FAMILY, ELETISE MATAGI WOLMAN, SENOUEFA
PRITT, TAUINAOLA LAUAMA, FUGA TOLANI TELESO,
VI`I PITA,
FIALE LARSON, aka FIALE NIKO, aka SOVITA SUAFOA, and SOVITA LIVING TRUST,
Objectors
_________________________________
SINAVIANA
M. ULUFALE, Administrator of the ESTATE OF IOANE FE`AFE`AGA ENE, Claimant
v.
TELESIA
FE`A FIAME, FA`AMOE
AFOA
L.S. LUTU, for and on behalf of PEARLITA FUAVAI, MARSHALL ASHLEY, for and on
behalf of ELETISE MATAGI WOLMAN, SENOUEFA PRITT, TAUINAOLA LAUAMA,
FUGA
TOLANI TELESO, VI`I PITA, FIALE LARSON,
aka
FIALE NIKO, aka SOVITA LIVING TRUST, and FE`AFE`AGA TAUAMO II, Objectors.
_________________________________
FA`AMAMAFA
POLOAI and LUSI POLOAI, Intervenors.
High Court of
Land and Titles Division
LT No. 14-93
LT No. 20-93
LT No. 10-95
LT No. 20-96
LT No. 01-98
[3ASR3d215]
[1] Where
judgment at end of first trial phase determined ownership of land at issue it
had resolved an ultimate issue and appeal from said judgment was ripe.
[2] A
decision is final for purposes of appeal if it effectively ends litigation on
the merits and leaves little for the court to do but execute the judgment.
[3] Where
party filed his motion for reconsideration on last day of 10-day period
specified in A.S.C.A. § 43.0802(a), but failed to serve opposing parties until
one day later, filing was nonetheless proper.
Before
Counsel: For Vi`i Pita, and Defendants/Objectors Tolani Teleso Fuga,
Eletise Matagi
Wolman, Seriouefa Pritt, Tauinaola Lauama,
Fiale Niko,
Sovita Living Trust, and Objector Marshall Ashley,
Marshall Ashley
and David P. Vargas
For
Defendants/Counterclaimants/Cross-Claimants Miriama
Garrett and
Richard Garrett, Defendant Ioane Fe`afe`aga Ene,
Claimants
Sinaviana M. Ulufale, Administrator, and Estate of
Ioane
Fe`afe`aga Ene, Charles V. Ala`ilima.
For Plaintiff
Defendant
Territorial Registrar, and Cross-Defendant Survey
Manager of the
Department of Public Works Meko Aiumu, Fiti
Sunia,
Assistant Attorney General
For
Plaintiff/Defendant Timu Levale, on behalf of the Timu
Family, and
Objector Fa`amoe I. Holewyne, Asaua Fu imaono
For Defendants
Ray McMoore and Sese McMoore, Aitofele
Sunia
For Defendant
Pearlita Candy Fuavai and Objector Afoa L.
Su`esu`e Lutu,
Afoa L. Su`esu`e Lutu
For Defendant
Amerika Samoa Bank, William H. Reardon
For Objectors
Telesia Fe`a-Fiame and Fe`afe`aga Tauamo II,
Tautai A.F.
Faalevao
For Intervenors
Fa`amamafa Poloai and Lusi Poloai, Katopau
T. Ainuu
ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
OR NEW TRIAL
Procedural History
The court’s
opinion and order deciding the first trial phase of these consolidated actions
was entered on
On
Discussion
[1-2] We hold that Timu’s motion for reconsideration or new trial is ripe
for decision. The judgment in the first trial phase resolved an ultimate
issue—that the land at issue was owned by the late bane Fe`a, and now bane
Fe`a’s estate, as individually owned land, subject to the rights of bane Fe`a’s
successors in interest. This question having been determined in favor of bane
Fe`a’s estate, we reasonably expect that the estate and bane Fe`a’s successors
in interest will diligently work to resolve most, if not all, their respective
rights and obligations without the court’s assistance. In numerous jurisdictions, a decision is
final for purposes of appeal if it effectively ends litigation on the merits
and leaves little for the court to do but execute the judgment. See
Deciding the motion for reconsideration or new trial at this point in
the proceedings also satisfies the purpose behind waiting for a final judgment
before appeal, as described in Williams v. Mumford, 511 F.2d 363 (D.C.
Cir. 1975). Ruling on the motion now
offers the advantage of expediting the final decision as to the ownership of
the land at issue. Until the final decision on this issue is made, justice is
effectively delayed for the ultimate prevailing party. Furthermore, piecemeal
review will not be an obstacle in this case, because the conclusion of the
first trial phase will essentially control the results of any subsequent
proceedings through the doctrine of issue preclusion. In sum, the circumstances of this case
overwhelmingly favor present resolution of the motion for reconsideration or
new trial with respect to the judgment in the first trial phase.
We next turn to whether Timu met the time requirement for filing the [3ASR3d217] motion. A.S.C.A. §
43.0802(a) states that a motion for new trial “shall be filed within 10 days
after the announcement of the judgment . . . .”
In Pal Air International, Inc. v. Samoa Aviation, Inc., 1
A.S.R.3d 1 (App. Div. 1997), the court held that T.C.R.C.P. 6(a) contro1s the
calculation of the 10-day period. Under
this rule, Timu filed his motion in the nick of time. The first trial phase
judgment was announced when it was entered on February 5, 1999. Rule 6(a) states in part that for purposes of
computing the 10-day period, “the day of the act, event, or default from which
the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included.” Thus, the
10-day period began running the following day, February 6, 1999. The tenth day was February 15, 1999, a public
holiday this year. Under Rule 6(a), the period was therefore extended to
February 16, 1999, the day when Timu filed his motion for reconsideration or
new trial with the court.
[3] Ioane Fe`a’s estate argues that Timu’s filing was incomplete until
February 17, 1999 when Timu noticed the parties of the motion and hearing on
the motion, and was thus untimely filed. However, A.S.C.A. § 43.0802(a) only
requires that a motion for new trial be filed within the 10-day period. It does not mention service of notice of the
motion or the hearing on the motion--or, for that matter, filing a supporting
memorandum of points and authorities on the substantive issues raised. Thus,
Timu satisfied the plain language of the statute by filing his motion on
February 16, 1999, the last day of the 10-day period.
Notice of the motion and hearing, as well as written arguments on the
issues presented, are essential to supply opposing parties and the court with
ample time and material with which to prepare for the hearing on the motion.
However, bane Fe`a’s estate does not contend, and we do not presume, that Timu
deprived any party of due process or other rights by noticing the motion and
hearing one day after the motion was filed.
Lastly,
having considered the counsel’s arguments on the merits of the issues involved,
we turn to the substance of Timu’s motion for reconsideration or new trial. In
short, Timu raises issues that were properly and adequately addressed by our
opinion and order of
Order
Timu’s
motion for reconsideration or new trial is denied.
It is so
Ordered
**********