REAL PROPERTY
Plaintiffs demonstrated great or irreparable injury where it was shown that co-landowner Defendant and his business partner had engaged in removal and excavation of land’s natural resources, agricultural products and timber without government permits, or the approval of co-landowners, and had also allowed cattle to roam freely, thereby damaging other parts of the property. Gurr v. Gurr, 1 A.S.R.3d 203 (1997).
The principles underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied in land and titles matters. Mailei v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R.3d 206 (1997).
The court will grant a motion to dismiss at the close of a claimant’s case in a Land & Title matter if he cannot establish a preponderance of the evidence in favor of his position. Mailei v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R.3d 206 (1997).
Article I, section 3, of the Revised Constitution of American Samoa, which shields Samoans from “alienation of their land and destruction of the Samoan way of life and language,” does not prohibit the alienation of communal land to other Samoans, nor does it limit the categories of Samoan land ownership. Mailei v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R.3d 206 (1997).
Article I, section 3, of the Revised Constitution of American Samoa does not require the burden of persuasion to be shifted to those parties with claims of individual ownership. Mailei v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R.3d 206 (1997).
The Territorial Registrar should not process a proffered title registration if the title to the land is already registered. Mailei v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R.3d 206 (1997).
A judgment in a prior case, between the same parties, or those in privity with them, which involves the same land title issue, is res judicata and binds the parties and the court. Mailei v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R.3d 206 (1997).
Arguments that a decision regarding land is contrary to Samoan custom or violative of treaty should be presented to the court deciding the case at the time that it is heard, and do not serve as a basis for later reversing a decision that has been fully litigated. Mailei v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R.3d 206 (1997).
Res judicata is a rule of substantive law and not of practice or procedure. Mailei v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R.3d 206 (1997).
Res judicata cannot be set aside by employing A.S.C.A. § 3.0242(b). Mailei v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R.3d 206 (1997).
The sa`o of a family need not personally appear in order for the family to defend claims made against its communal land. Mailei v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R.3d 206 (1997).
Where family was represented by both village matai and sister of sa`o, and advised by a capable legal practitioner and family member, it was a party to previous land case and bound by that decision. Mailei v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R.3d 206 (1997).
The purpose of title registration is to record the ownership of surveyed land for the world to know. Mailei v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R.3d 206 (1997).
Any claimant who fails to object to the offer of registration of title to land by the end of the 60-day notice period loses his claim and is forever bound by the subsequent registration, in the absence of fraud or similar circumstance. Mailei v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R.3d 206 (1997).
Absence of a family’s sa`o from the territory during 60-day notice period does not excuse the family’s failure to object to an offer of registration of title to its land. Mailei v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R.3d 206 (1997).
A party is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and actual costs from a claimant who unsuccessfully relitigates land titles. Mailei v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R.3d 206 (1997).
Although Rule 11 sanctions are normally imposed against an attorney, they may be imposed against a party when warranted. Mailei v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R.3d 206 (1997).
Where defendants unilaterally build structure on family land, such actions are tantamount to an unlawful assertion of pule, as well as an unauthorized assignment of family land. Pagofie v. Matagi, 1 A.S.R.3d 227 (1997).
Where unauthorized structure is small, movable, not a significant encumbrance, and nearly completed, no irreparable injury will result by allowing its completion and no preliminary injunction will lie. Pagofie v. Matagi, 1 A.S.R.3d 227 (1997).
Where circumstances indicate that family members are exercising unauthorized pule, great or irreparable injury can be shown. Pagofie v. Matagi, 1 A.S.R.3d 227 (1997).
A.S.C.A. § 43.0304 authorizes the court to prohibit the parties from taking any action that would be tantamount to exercising pule. Pagofie v. Matagi, 1 A.S.R.3d 227 (1997).
Where claim of adverse possession had not been raised in previous land case between same parties, but was ripe at time that case was decided, court’s previous determination regarding ownership was conclusive as to such claim. Seva’aetasi v. Moi, 1 A.S.R.3d 232 (1997).
Where plaintiffs attempted to advance adverse possession claim, evidence produced in previous action that that Plaintiff’s predecessor had received a "flawed" deed, allowing him to possess land, demonstrated permissive possession of the land. Seva’aetasi v. Moi, 1 A.S.R.3d 232 (1997).
Any activities on the land in
pursuance of a license, no matter how extensive and no matter what the original
state of the land, cannot give rise to a claim of ownership. Seva’aetasi v. Moi, 1 A.S.R.3d 232 (1997).
Credible, convincing evidence existed in favor of defendant’s claim to land where defendant testified that disputed land was given to his family by village council upon original division of village, where no other families from the same village had appeared to controvert defendant’s testimony, where precedent indicated that defendant’s family was the only one to defend title to land, and where evidence indicated that plaintiffs’ occupancy was not exclusive. Seva’aetasi v. Moi, 1 A.S.R.3d 232 (1997).
A complaint in a contested land case that the Governor failed to provide the affected plaintiff with notice of the Governor’s decision concerning alienation of communal property is not subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. Ah Soon v. Tafa’ifa, 1 A.S.R.3d 236 (1997).
Notwithstanding the fact that a family matai followed the statutory requisites for transferring communal land, the matai may still be liable for breach of a fiduciary duty. Ah Soon v. Tafa’ifa, 1 A.S.R.3d 236 (1997).