v.
PILI POPO LETULI, ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, MITIOMAAUGA
SALAVE’A, FONOTI TAFAIFA, and IOSEFO KAPELI IULI, Counterclaimants.
[In re Matai Title LETULI of the
High Court of
Land and Titles Division
MT No. 11-98
March 27, 2000
[1] Under A.S.C.A. § 1.0406(b), a prerequisite to
filing a claim to succeed to a vacant matai title is that a family meeting was
held for the purpose of selecting the successor, according to the traditions of
the family, and that the family thus had a meaningful opportunity to decide for
itself whether it can select a new titleholder without judicial intervention.[4ASR3d274]
[2] Under
A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(c)(2), the criteria for judicial determination of a matai
controversy includes the wish of the majority or plurality of the customary
clans of the family with respect for the common Samoan custom of choosing a
matai by a consensus of the participants at a meeting of the family during
which the integral elements of discussions and good faith efforts to settle
disputes occur.
[3] Where a number of gatherings are held,
those which include only a particular matai title candidate’s immediate family,
clan, or some other portion of the extended family cannot be classified as extended
family meetings.
[4] Where there have been several meetings of an
extended family to consider matai title succession with varying outcomes and a
consensus to postpone the selection decision, there has not been a meaningful
family meeting which the court can consider so as to adjudicate a title
dispute.
[5] Under A.S.C.A. § 1.0407(b), a counterclaim to a
vacant matai title must be signed by no fewer than 25 supporters related by
blood to the vacant title.
Before
Counsel:
For Claimant Olo U. Misilagi Letuli, Afoa L. Su`esu`e Lutu
For
Counterclaimant Phi Popo Letuli, Salanoa Aumoeualogo
Soli
For
Counterclaimant Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, Tauivi Tuinei
For Counterclaimant Mitiomaauga Salave’a, Pro
Se
For
Counterclaimant Fonoti Tafaifa, Asaua Fulmaono
For
Counterclaimant Iosefo Kapeli Iuli, Isa-Lei Iuli
AMENDED ORDER RETURNING SELECTION PROCESS TO FAMILY TO
HOLD ONE OR MORE MEANINGFUL FAMILY MEETINGS TO SELECT THE SUCCESSOR MATAI
On December 30, 1997, claimant Olo B. Misilagi Letuli
(“Olo”) filed with the Territorial Registrar his claim to succeed to the vacant matai title “Letuli” of the
Village of Ili`ili. The claim was noticed
and attracted seven timely counterclaims.
One of the counterclaimants, Ufuti Fa`afetai Ieremia, dropped out by
failing to file the questionnaire required in matai title cases. Another counterclaimant, Fugaipaono V.
Tagaloa, withdrew before trial. The
trial began on January 25, 2000 and concluded on February 3, 2000. The remaining six candidates and all counsel
were present throughout the trial.[4ASR3d275]
A. Meaningful
Family Meetings
[1-2] One
prerequisite to filing a claim to succeed to a vacant matai title is that a
family meeting was called and held for the purpose of selecting the successor,
according to the traditions of the family.
A.S.C.A. § 1.0406(b). The
criteria for judicial determination of a matai controversy includes the wish of
the majority or plurality of the customary clans of the family. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(c)(2). Both statutory requirements respect the
common Samoan custom of choosing a matai by a consensus of the participants at
a meeting of the family. See In re
Matai Title “Taliaaueafe”, 3 A.S.R.3d 225, 227-28 (Land & Titles Div.
1999). Discussions and good faith
efforts to settle disputes are integral elements of Samoan family
meetings. Section 1.0406(b) contemplates
that the family had a meaningful opportunity by this process “to decide for
itself whether or not it can select a new titleholder” without judicial
intervention. In re Matai Title
“Taliaaueafe”, 3 A.S.R.3d at 229.
[3-4] During
their testimony, each of the six candidates addressed the family meetings
related to selection of the successor to the presently vacant “Letuli”
title. Most of these meetings were
actually gatherings of the particular candidate’s immediate family, clan, or
some other portion of the extended Letuli family. Only three of the meetings held can be
classified as extended family meetings.
Olo was promoted for selection as the successor
“Letuli” titleholder at all three of the extended family meetings. In fact, he was the only nominee. At each
meeting, however, the consensus was to postpone the selection decision to a
later meeting. At the first two
meetings, some attendees advocated that, as a matter of respect for the
recently deceased titleholder, the dignity of the title, and the importance of
the selection process, a year or more should pass before the family choose the
next “Letuli” titleholder. At all three
meetings, some attendees also expressed concern that Olo had called each of the
three meetings when that responsibility traditionally belonged to the holder of
the matai title ‘Timu’ as the matua for the “Letuli” title. In addition, some of this group held to the
view that the person calling the meetings could not be properly considered to
be the successor titleholder.
The present holder of the “Timu” title is Timu Levale
(“Timu”), who resides in
At the third meeting, on November 8, 1997, Timu
announced his intentions of calling the extended family to meet for the
selection of the successor titleholder shortly after February 6, 1998, the
second anniversery of the late Letuli Toloa’s death. By consensus, those assembled agreed with
Timu. However, on December 30, 1997, Olo
went ahead with filing his claim with the Territorial Registrar for
registration of the title in his name.
Considering the number and outcomes of the three
meetings of the extended family, the Court finds that there has not been a
meaningful family meeting to select the next holder of the “Letuli” title.
Accordingly, we will refer the selection process back to the extended family
for that purpose. We will also stay
further proceedings in this action until the extended family has achieved that
vital purpose and, after the matter has been fully and fairly discussed, has
either selected or failed to select the successor titleholder.
B. Special
Collateral Matters
1. Ineligible
Candidate
[5]
Counterclaimant Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (“Faleomavaega”) filed his counterclaim
on February 20, 1998. The claim was
signed by only nine supporters. A.S.C.A.
§ 1.0407(b) clearly states that a counterclaim must be signed by no less than
25 supporters related by blood to the vacant title. An exception to this requirement is provided
in § 1.0407(d) when the family does not have 25 members qualified to support
the counterclaim, and Faleomavaeaga executed the standard affidavit provided by
the Territorial Registrar when this circumstance applies. Although the 60-day
filing deadline did not expire until March 2, 1998, Faleomavaega
explained that he was mistakenly informed on February 19, 1998 that the
deadline was the following day, February 20, the same day he was scheduled to
depart the Territory, and he could only obtain the nine signatures in this
short time span.
Much later, on October 26, 1999, Faleomavaega filed a
trial brief and supplement to his questionnaire that included signatures of
another 42 supporters on the standard form.
However, he omitted his signature on this form, probably because he was
then outside the Territory performing his duties as
We do not believe that Faleomavaeaga intentionally
executed an erroneous affidavit on February 20, 1998. Hurried, he likely did not pay close attention
to the Territorial Registrar’s explanation of the purpose of [4ASR3d277] the document or carefully
read it. Regardless, his counterclaim
did not meet the statutory support mandate in a timely manner. Thus, in the context of the present
proceeding, Faleomavaega did not become an eligible candidate and cannot be
considered by the Court for selection as the next “Letuli” titleholder.
The extended family can, of course, still consider
Falemovaega at their next meetings when the family’s decision on the successor
to the “Letuli” title is fully discussed.
2. Candidate’s
Demise
On March 6, 2000, counterclaimant Iosefo Kapeli Iuli
(“Iuli”) passed away at an untimely age.
His proponents in the extended family are now effectively deprived from
having Iuli or their a1ternate candidate considered further by the Court in
this proceeding to be the successor to the “Letuli” title. The Court will select the next “Letuli” from
among the remaining candidates, if we must make that decision. Meanwhile,
however, the Court is returning the selection process to the extended family
for meaningful deliberations on the “Letuli” successor. Thus, Iuli’s proponents now have the
opportunity decide whether to support one
of the remaining candidates or to propose another person for consideration
during the ensuing extended family discussions.
Order
1. The selection of the next holder of the matai title
“Letuli” is returned to the extended family for decision after the family has
met and meaningfully discussed the matter on one or more occasions.
2. Within 30 days after entry of this order, Timu, the
matua of the “Letuli” title, is directed to issue or cause to be issued
written notice of the first extended family meeting for the purpose of
selecting the next “Letuli” titleholder.
Additional meetings for this purpose should be noticed and held, as may
be necessary or appropriate to accomplish the objective. Notices of the meetings shall be
disseminated, by radio broadcast, newspaper publication and other appropriate
means, to ensure that as many members of the family as possible are informed
about the date, time and place of each meeting.
3. In the event that Timu is unable or otherwise fails
to issue timely notice of the first meeting of the extended family, Olo is
authorized to issue or cause to be issued the notice for this meeting and any
subsequent meetings.
4. This action is stayed until the extended family
meets and meaningfully discusses the selection of the successor holder of the
“Letuli” title. If the [4ASR3d278] family successfully selects
the successor, any of the present candidates or an appropriate intervenor may
move to dismiss the action. If the
family fails in the effort to select the successor, any of the present
candidates may move to reinstate the proceedings. The Court will then hold an evidentiary
hearing to determine if one or more meaningful meetings were held and, upon
finding that such meetings were held, will proceed with selection of the
successor from among the four remaining candidates.
It is so ordered.
*********