SEUTATIA FIAME, Plaintiff,
v.
MANU
and SULUFAIGA MATAUTIA, Defendants.
High
Court of
Trial Division
CA No. 18-99
March 24, 2000
[1] Although it would be helpful to have a
determination as to whether a tenancy in the entirety issue applies to the
territory, under A.S.C.A. § 43.1101 the court must have a true case or
controversy before it in order to issue a declaratory judgment. [4ASR3d96]
[2] For there to be a case or controversy amenable to
a decision on the merits, it must be relatively certain that coercive
litigation will eventually ensue between the same parties if a declaratory
judgment is refused.
[3] Where a case is constructed by acquiescing parties
with identical interests in order to obtain an advisory opinion, and where the
parties could have resolved the issue without the involvement of the Court,
such declaratory relief cannot be granted absent the requirement that there be
a true case or controversy, regardless of how useful a disposition on the merits
would be.
Before
Counsel: For Plaintiff, Barry
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Seutatia Fiame (“Fiame”) filed a complaint
for declaratory relief on March 12, 1999.
The named defendants are her children, who have not contested the
complaint. Fiame brings suit in order to
establish clear title to certain real property located in the
This property in
question, known as Kokoland, was deeded to Fiame and her deceased husband
without specifying the type of joint ownership. The husband died intestate on
October 23, 1994, and Fiame and her children now wish to determine the
ownership of the property in order to secure a mortgage or sell the
property. There being no default rule at
present in the territory regarding the disposition of real property when a
spouse dies intestate, Fiame and her children are uncertain as to who holds
interests in Kokoland. Fiame is
accordingly seeking declaratory judgment that a tenancy by the entirety applies
in this situation, making her the sole owner of the property.
Analysis
[1] Fiame is
correct in asserting that her situation is not unique in the territory. It would indeed be helpful to determine
whether a tenancy by the entirety applies in the territory when a property is
deeded to spouses without designating the tenancy and one spouse then dies
intestate. However, in order to issue a declaratory judgment to that effect,
the [4ASR3d97] court requires that a true case or controversy
come before it. A.S.C.A. § 43.1101.
[2] In order
for there to be a case or controversy amenable to a decision on the merits, we
must ask “whether it is relatively certain that coercive litigation will
eventually ensue between the same parties if a declaratory judgment is
refused.” In re High Chief Title
“Mauga,” 4 A.S.R. 132, 135 (1974).
In contrast to more recent cases where the parties were likely to sue
each other in the absence of declaratory relief, see, e.g., Am.
Samoa Gov’t v. S. Pac. Island Airsystems, 26 A.S.R.2d 132 (Trial Div.
1994); Sala v.
Am. Samoa Gov’t, 21 A.S.R.2d 50 (Trial Div. 1992), the parties in the
present case have shown no such inclination.
[3] The
present case appears to have been constructed by acquiescing parties with
identical interests in order to obtain an advisory opinion. However useful a
disposition on the merits would be, we cannot overlook the case or controversy
requirement to grant declaratory relief in this case. This case never should have come before us,
because the parties could have easily established clear title to the property
by having the children sign quitclaim deeds assigning any and all interest in
the property to Fiame.
We are eager to rule on the nature of the tenancies in
this kind of situation, but longstanding and powerful prohibitions on advisory
opinions require us to wait for a true controversy in order to do so.
Order
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for a default judgment
or summary judgment in the form of declaratory relief in favor of Fiame is
denied.
It is so ordered.
**********