TAFUA F.M. SEUMANUTAFA, Claimant,
v.
TUIAVATELE ALAI’A FILIFILI M., TAGATAOLEMANU
ALOA TUPUA LE’I, MOAALI`ITELE L.K. TU`UFULI,
and ELIU F. PAOPAO, Counterclaimants.
____________________
[In re the Matai Title “GALEA’I” of the
High Court of
Land and Titles Division
MT No. 06-98
August 3, 2000
[1] Under A.S.C.A. § 43.0803 and T.C.R.C.P. 62(d), a
court, in its sound discretion, may stay a final judgment only for cause, such
as irreparable harm to the appellant if not granted or irreparable harm to the
appellee if granted, and after considering the likelihood of success on appeal
and whether the public interest would be affected by a stay.
[2] Although in most matai title cases the balance of
hardships will militate strongly in favor of granting a stay, even when
reversal on appeal is highly unlikely, where the equities do not dramatically
sway the balance in favor of either party a dispute should be resolved without
undue delay since a family’s welfare and fortune depend largely on having a
leader to allocate and protect the family’s lands, oversee family matters, and
otherwise serve and lead family members.
[3] Where there is a consensus of the clans of a
family which is not [4ASR3d310] likely
to change, it is more important for an investiture to proceed than for a stay
to be granted because of a party’s personal interests.
[4] There is a
public interest in denying stays that serve to encourage litigants to appeal
only to postpone the effective date of judgments against them.
Before
Counsel:
For Claimant Tafua F.M. Seumanutafa, Sala Samiu, L.P,
For Counterclaimant Tulavatele Alai’a Filifili
M., Tautai A.F.
Faalevao
For Counterclaimant Tagataolemanu Aba Tufua
Le’i, Asaua
Fuimaono
For Counterclaimant Moaali`itele L.K.
Tu`ufuli, Afoa L.
Su`esu`e Lutu
For Counterclaimant Eliu F. Paopao, Arthur
Ripley, Jr.
ORDER DENYING STAY PENDING APPEAL
On May 12, 2000, the Court awarded the matai title
“Ga1ea`i” to counterclaimant Moaali`itele L.K. Tu`ufuli (“Moaali`itele”). On July 3, 2000, claimant Tafua F.M.
Seumantafa (“Tafua”) timely filed a notice to appeal our decision following our
denial of his motion for new trial on June 22, 2000. Simultaneously, Tafua filed a motion to stay
the judgment pending appeal. The motion
for a stay was heard on July 28, 2000.
Counsel for Tafua and Moaali`itele were present.
Discussion
[1] The
court, in its sound discretion, may stay a final judgment only for cause
shown. A.S.C.A. § 43.0803; T.C.R.C.P.
62(d); In re Matai Title “Salanoa”, AP No. 04-98, slip op. at 2 (App.
Div. Oct. 28, 1998) (Order Denying Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment Pending
Appeal). The decision is neither
automatic nor casual, Asifoa v. Lualemana, 17 A.S.R.2d 10, 12
(App. Div. 1990), and is guided by evaluating several criteria: (1) irreparable
harm to the appellant if a stay is not granted, (2) irreparable harm to the
appellee if a stay is granted, and (3) the likelihood of success on
appeal. In re Matai
Title “Mulita’uaopele”, 17 A.S.R.2d 71, 73 (Land & Titles
Div. 1990). A fourth criteria is whether
the public interest would be affected by a stay. Asifoa v. Lualemana, 17
A.S.R.2d 100, 102 (App. Div. 1990).
[2] The
first two criteria involve weighing the equities based on the harm resulting to
the parties if a stay is granted or denied.
This Court once [4ASR3d311] observed
that “in most matai title cases, the balance of hardships will militate
strongly in favor of granting a stay pending appeal” and then cited a number of
factors that may justify a stay in a particular matai case, even when reversal
on appeal is highly unlikely. In re Matai
Title “Mulitauaopele”, 17 A.S.R.2d at 73. This statement is not, however, a substitute
for judicious inquiry. In re Matai
Title “Salanoa”, slip op. at 4-6 (Order Denying Motion to Stay Execution of
Judgment Pending Appeal). Indeed, the
Court in In re Matai Title “Mulitauaopele” went on to find circumstances,
including an essentially meritless appeal, that supported denial of the stay in
that case. 17 A.S.R.2d at 73-75.
The harm to the appellant and appellee individually is
always apparent in a matai case. Without
a stay, the appellee’s coming investiture as the titleholder before a decision
on appeal will impact the appellant’s standing in the family. With a stay, the appellee’s installation will
be considerably delayed. Other specific
factors may affect the “balance of hardships” on the individual litigants in a
given case, see In re Matai Title “Salanoa”, slip op. at 4 (Order
Denying Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal), but none are
apparent here. The equities individually
pertaining to Moaali`itele and Tafua do not dramatically sway the balance in
favor of either party for purposes of staying the judgment.
In our view, the factors that the Court listed in In re
Matai Title “Mulitauaopele”, 17 A.S.R.2d at 73, deal for the
most part with the impact on the family involved of granting or denying a
stay. As such, they address the fourth
criteria of the effect of a stay on the public interest far more significantly
than the litigants’ individual concerns.
It is important to the family and its role in community affairs to have
matai title disputes before the Court resolved without undue delay. A family’s general welfare and good fortune
depend in large measure on having a leader who can allocate and protect the
family’s communal lands, oversee family functions and disagreements, and otherwise
serve and lead family members. See In
re Matai Title “Salanoa”, slip op. at 5-6 (Order Denying Motion to Stay
Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal).
[3] We found
from the evidence in this case that Moaali`itele received the consensus support
of the two clans of the Galea’i family at a meeting of the family gathered to
select the successor to the “Galea’i” title.
Tafua disagrees with and continues to resist the family’s decision.
However, we have not seen any evidence that indicates any change in the
family’s consensus support for Moali`itele as the successor titleholder. We
think it is far more important that Moaali`itele assumes leadership of the
Galea’i family as soon as the family wishes to proceed with the investiture
than to stay, in effect, the appropriate ceremonies pending appeal because of
Tafua’s personal interests.[4ASR3d312]
[4] Lastly,
we point out that Tafua’s motion for a new trial only took issue with our
findings of fact. He did not cite any
other error as a potential basis for appeal.
In our view, the evidence at trial was more than sufficient to support
the findings of fact. His grounds for
appeal are weak. Thus, typical of matai
title cases, the likelihood that Tafua will succeed in the appeal is virtually
non-existent. The slim possibility of
success brings into play the public interest in denying stays that serve to
encourage litigants to appeal only to postpone the effective date of judgments
against them. Asifoa, 17 A.S.R.2d. at 12-14.
Order
Accordingly, Tafua’s motion to stay the judgment
pending appeal is denied.
**********