§ 1 Impact on American Samoa Laws
§ 2 Criminal Law
§ 3 Family Law
§ 3(1) Family Membership
§ 3(2) Adoption
§ 3(3) Burial Grounds
§ 4 Property Rights
§ 5 Ceremonies
§ 6 Samoan Language
§ 7 Village Councils
§ 8 Matai
§ 8(1) General Provisions
§ 8(2) General Pule or Authority
§ 8(3) Pule over Communal Land
§ 8(4) Family’s Obligation of Service
§ 8(5) Removal
§ 8(6) Title Disputes
§ 9 Elections
§
1 Impact
on
SEE
SEE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 3 – CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Courts will not destroy customs
of
Customs of
Customs of
Court must recognize Samoan
customs where they do not conflict with laws of
Samoa was the actual historical
location of the
Under Constitution of American
Samoa the legislature, and particularly the Senate which is composed of
traditional chiefs chosen according to Samoan custom, has a peculiar
relationship to the preservation of land and culture. Rev. Const'n of Am.
Samoa art. I § 3, art. II § 4. Tuika Tuika v. Governor of
Court should interpret statutes dealing with Samoan custom and matai titles so as to minimize the extent to which customary law is modified or overridden by the imported procedural framework. In re Matai Title Ma'ae, 6 A.S.R.2d 75.
Territorial statutes concerning matai titles and other customary matters represent the best efforts of the legislature to incorporate custom into written law and to provide procedures for its preservation and enforcement. In re Matai Title Sotoa, 6 A.S.R.2d 91.
Court has no power to disregard territorial statute on the ground that it allegedly conflicts with tradition or custom. In re Matai Title Sotoa, 6 A.S.R.2d 91.
Samoan way of life is dynamic, not static, and is amenable to change. Toleafoa v. Tiapula, 7 A.S.R.2d 117.
The concept of tautua (service) varies from family to family and is best defined by the family rather than the court. Toleafoa v. Tiapula, 7 A.S.R.2d 117.
Provision of territorial constitution that county council elect senators in accordance with Samoan custom means that the council is to use the traditional Samoan manner of decision making as it existed at the time the provision was adopted. Rev. Const. Am. Samoa art. II § 4. Mauga v. Lutu, 10 A.S.R.2d 115.
Court will not lay down a rule prescribing the exact method or custom a county council must use to elect a senator in accordance with Samoan custom, especially as custom may vary in different counties. Rev. Const. Am. Samoa art. II § 4. Mauga v. Lutu, 10 A.S.R.2d 115.
Provision of territorial constitution that county council elect senators in accordance with Samoan custom does not include power to delegate the decision completely to a subdivision of the county, since this would allow a new custom, habit, or practice to repeal explicit and unambiguous constitutional provisions. Rev. Const. Am. Samoa art. II § 4. Mauga v. Lutu, 10 A.S.R.2d 115.
The "order in aid of judgment" statute requires the court, upon application from a judgment debtor, to order a payment schedule which "shall allow the debtor to retain such property and such portion of his income as may be necessary to provide the reasonable living requirements of the debtor and his dependents," specifically including traditional, Samoan family obligations. A.S.C.A. § 43.1501. Samoa Products, Inc. v. A`asa, 17 A.S.R.2d 66.
Informal statements of
traditional Samoan custom and law are neither binding on the Court nor
persuasive, as they do not represent a recitation of legal authority.
Pene v. Bank of
When a conflict arises, Samoan
custom must give way to the laws of the
It is appropriate for the courts
of
Samoan custom is defined by an evolutionary process, not by the judicial process. Mulitauaopele v. Mulitauaopele, 25 A.S.R.2d 43.
Under the Deeds of Cession
between the chiefs of Eastern Samoa and the
Where a conflict exists between statute and any customary privilege, the statute governs. In Re Matai Title I`aulualo, 25 A.S.R.2d 155.
Custom in conflict with law must give way. A.S.C.A. § 1.0202. In Re the Matai Title Iu, 25 A.S.R.2d 127.
There is nothing in law or custom to prevent reunification of a split matai title; however, reunification is something best left to the evolutionary process of Samoan custom, as opposed to yet another conflicting judicial pronouncement on the issue of split/joint matai titles. Fanene v. Fanene, 26 A.S.R.2d 8.
Where law and Samoan custom conflict, the law prevails. Mau v. Fuimaono, 27 A.S.R.2d 44.
§ 2 Criminal Law
SEE CRIMINAL LAW
Under Samoan custom, land may be transferred as damages for sanguinary assault. Tufaga v. Mativa, 1 A.S.R. 184.
Intercourse with taupo amounts to
criminal disrespect of High Chief who appointed taupo.
Because of Samoan custom, attorney is not likely to take case against husband of his family member. Tago v. Hunkin, 3 A.S.R. 427.
Under Samoan custom, Ifoga is presented to family or deceased by those responsible for wrongful death but this is not meant to compensate family of deceased but merely as expression of sorrow and apology. Hsu v. Pratt, 4. A.S.R. 752.
That defendant's conduct was
similar to pre-Christian Samoan ceremonial practices was no defense in
prosecution for sexual abuse and sodomy, since territorial legislature enacted
no statutory exception for such practices. A.S.C.A. §§ 46.3611,
3612.
§ 3 Family Law
SEE FAMILY LAW
§3(1) Family Membership
Under Samoan custom the male branch of the family absorbs the female branch and “pule” passes from male to male where possible. Sagapolu v. Tanielu, 1 A.S.R. 331.
Under Samoan custom, matai is trustee of family land for benefit of entire family, and his sons may, by deciding to live with their wives, become members of different family or even matais of different family. Talo v. Tavi, 2 A.S.R. 63.
Samoan custom permits person to be member of two different families at same time. Sueuga v. Laisene, 2 A.S.R. 82.
Evidence supports determination of court that matai “Veevalu” is lesser title in Mageo family, including admission of facts by matai “Veevalu” and where facts determined are supported by evidence, court will not grant petition for rehearing on grounds that it misunderstood facts. Gi v. Mageo, 2 A.S.R. 383.
Under Samoan custom, outsiders who come to live with family and are married into family become family members even though they are not blood members. Asuega v. Mauga, 3 A.S.R. 70.
Under Samoan custom, all those who live in the family are considered family members, although not necessarily blood members. Vaotuua Family v. Puletele, 3 A.S.R. 145.
Samoan custom decrees that widow with children continues to live with children on family land of her deceased husband’ if she has no children she returns to her own family’s land. Vaimaona Family v. Meafou, 3 A.S.R. 228.
Exchanging visits in manner typical of family members is evidence of family membership pursuant to Samoan custom. Foster v. Fa’amuli, 4 A.S.R. 3.
Under Samoan custom, man buried on communal family land near house he lived in, despite request by other relatives that he be buried elsewhere indicates family membership. Momoe v. Atofau, 4 A.S.R. 305.
Under Samoan custom it would be natural for man coming from another island to stay with family of his mother. Tuanaitau v. Paogofie, 4 A.S.R. 375.
Under Samoan custom, married man living with wife’s family is considered to be member of wife’s family. Lualemana v. Chiefs of Aitulagi, 4 A.S.R. 383.
Under Samoan custom, women do not marry men from their families. Lolo v. Heirs of Sekio, 4 A.S.R. 477.
Where former title holder and other matais favor person to hold title, this is strong indication that person is family member. Utu v. Aumoeualogo, 4 A.S.R. 906.
A reference to one person as the "sister" of another is not contradicted by evidence that they did not have identical ancestors, since in Samoan custom the terms "brother" and "sister" frequently refer to relatives of the same generation whether or not they are born of the same mother and father. Satele v. Uiagalelei, 8 A.S.R.2d 97.
When two branches of a family are not related to each other by blood, it would be contrary to Samoan custom for them to meet together as one family to choose a single title holder with pule over both families' lands and internal affairs. In Re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 16 A.S.R.2d 63.
Neither law nor Samoan custom forbids the continued existence of two unrelated families, which came into being after the original line of direct descendants from the first titleholder died out. In Re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 17 A.S.R.2d 75.
There are four customary clans of the Misaalefua family, namely: Agafala, Vaepala, Tuimalie, and Faliu. In Re Matai Title Missaalefua, 28 A.S.R.2d 106.
Samoan families traditionally make decisions not by pure majoritarian democracy but by consensus. In Re Matai Title Missaalefua, 28 A.S.R.2d 106.
§3(2) Adoption
SEE FAMILY LAW §3(3) Voluntary Relinquishment of Parental Rights – Adoption
Court will consider children adopted in accordance with Samoan custom to be members of family. Leasiolagi v. Fao, 2 A.S.R. 451.
Many times a Samoan couple will adopt a blood relative; therefore because a child is adopted does not necessarily mean he is not a blood relative of either adoptive parent. Toatolu v. Laumea, 4 A.S.R. 223.
Legal termination of parental rights has important and irrevocable legal consequences that are often quite different from those of Samoan customary informal adoption, in which children often return to their natural parents. In Re Three Minor Children, 10 A.S.R.2d 57.
Informal fa`a Samoa adoptions do not require the consent of the Court because they do not affect the legal rights and obligations of the parties. In re Two Minor Children, 15 A.S.R.2d 28.
A Samoan customary adoption does not require Court approval or a legal termination of the rights and obligation of the natural parents. In re A Minor Child, 19 A.S.R.2d 97.
When a change in legal status is not in the child's best interest, customary Samoan adoption may continue to inure. In Re a Minor Child, 20 A.S.R.2d 49.
A change in legal status in not necessary to facilitate customary fa`a Samoa adoption. In Re a Minor Child, 25 A.S.R.2d 25 A.S.R.2d 89.
§3(3) Burial Grounds
Matai of family, under Samoan custom, subject to certain limitations, has control over family lands, and he determines, with implied or express consent of family, where communal burial ground shall be. Tiumalu v. Lio, 3 A.S.R. 176
Rights of family member to land assigned to him by former matai are subject to senior right of family to use lands as family burial ground and may be taken for such purpose if family has first been assigned other land. Tiumalu v. Lio, 3 A.S.R. 176.
Samoan custom is to bury matais on communal family land and not on individually owned land. Moananu v. Tuanaitau, 3 A.S.R. 564.
Award of funeral expenses in American Samoa should not include full cost of traditional gifts to persons attending the funeral, since the expectation according to Samoan custom is that the gifts will be reciprocated over time. Fa'avae v. American Samoa Power Authority, 5 A.S.R.2d 53.
For a chief of one Samoan family to be buried on land of another family, while not unheard of, is hardly in the main stream of tradition; rather, the general and long standing custom is to place family graves on family land, to tend them carefully, and to rely on them as evidence of land ownership. Uiagalelei v. Fuimaono, 14 A.S.R.2d 49.
§ 4 Property Rights
SEE REAL PROPERTY
Samoan custom of “Sa” establishes a lien on property for purposes of taxation. Moimoi v. Howden, 1 A.S.R. 3.
“Sa” one of the oldest Samoan customs, is resorted to when the people must pay a tax or debt. Moimoi v. Howden, 1 A.S.R. 3.
Disregard of the obligations imposed by a “Sa” requires punishment of the offender. Moimoi v. Howden, 1 A.S.R. 3.
Under Samoan custom, immediate members of dying person’s family are called in to hear testator’s disposition of property. Sapela v. Mageo, 1 A.S.R. 143
Under Samoan custom if family member builds his house near family guest house, he must construct it so that it will be lower than guest house; however, this requirement is not applicable where house is at substantial distance from guest house. Seui v. Mata’afa, 4 A.S.R. 333.
Where Samoan is constructing a house about fifty feet from guest house, court will order that he construct it so that it is lower than guest house in accordance with Samoan custom. Seui v. Mata’afa, 4 A.S.R. 333.
§ 5 Ceremonies
Under Samoan custom, strangers are invited to partake of food at feasts, and if trial judges ate food at feast of another they had no obligation to donors of food, nor would the acceptance indicate any bias or prejudice if donors were party to pending case. Betham v. Faumuina, 3 A.S.R. 537.
Under Samoan custom, suatai or sua is formal presenation of food, and if party presented sua to trial judge, it would have been easily witnessed. Betham v. Faumuina, 3 A.S.R. 537.
Under Samoan custom, ipu is not confined strictly to Tuimanua and his people but can be used in connection with giving kava to other chiefs and officials. Tauanuu v. Lei, 1 A.S.R. 621.
§ 6 Samoan Language
Samoan word “tupu” means king, monarch or sovereign and represents the highest sovereign power, without condition or limitation. Teo v. Liufau, 1 A.S.R. 628.
“Tupu” implies a far higher authority than a “Faipule,” “Matua” or “Tulafale Ali’i.” Teo v. Liufau, 1 A.S.R. 628.
In the Samoan language “Tui” is a synonym for the word “Tupu.” Teo v. Liufau, 1 A.S.R. 628.
While it was not possible to obtain an accurate definition of the Samoan word “Nofofanau,” court found “Nofofanau” unquestionably indicated a degree of dependence of one person on another. Mailo v. Fanene, 1 A.S.R. 191.
§ 7 Village Councils
Holder of Tongan title may not sit on village council on strength of title. Atufili v. Timoteo, 3 A.S.R. 395.
Under Samoan custom, chief’s rank in village is indicated by number of ring steps up to floor of guest house and number of beams under his roof. Seui v. Mata’afa, 4 A.S.R. 333.
§ 8 Matai
§8(1) General Provisions
Matai who does not live with family cannot serve their interests well. Galu v. Mariota, 1 A.S.R. 461.
Samoans do not part with their lands and titles easily and it would not be in accord with Samoan custom for a Samoan chief to renounce the pule of his matai name and family lands to his daughter’s husband and their children forever. Maluia v. Tafetee, 1 A.S.R. 537.
Section 933 A.S. Code does not require matai to live in village to which title is attached; many Manua matais live in Tutuila, only occasionally going to their Manua villages. Tuliau v. Sunia, 4 A.S.R. 858.
In some villages, the bearer of ava cup for the village council is recognized as a matai. Moea`i v. Te`o, 9 A.S.R.2d 107.
Although designation by a living matai of his successor has its place in the customs of Samoa, it has always been understood that the whole family has the right to decide whether to accept the designee or to choose someone else. In re Matai Title Tauala, 14 A.S.R.2d 83.
Having two or more persons serve as joint holders of the same matai title is consistent with the law and custom of American Samoa. In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 16 A.S.R.2d 63.
Although the exception, ancient Samoan traditions abound with stories of matai who obtained their titles for reasons other than blood descent from a previous title holder, such as "igagato" (conferral as a reward) and "matu`upalapala" ("commission" to avoid the extinction of the line). In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 17 A.S.R.2d 75.
While some families or matai may still practice the old, autocratic custom, which allows a matai to appoint his own successor, this custom must be viewed under the law as only a relic from a bygone era. In Re the Matai Title Iu, 25 A.S.R.2d 127.
There is nothing in law or custom to prevent reunification of a split matai title; however, reunification is something best left to the evolutionary process of Samoan custom, as opposed to yet another conflicting judicial pronouncement on the issue of split/joint matai titles. Fanene v. Fanene, 26 A.S.R.2d 8.
That one matai's lands are in essence being used to render tautua to another is thoroughly repugnant to the customs and traditions of the Samoan people. Afoa v. Taaifili, 26 A.S.R.2d 49.
The matai title Misaalefua is title of paramount stature in the territory. In Re Matai Title Misaalefua, 28 A.S.R.2d 106
§8(2) General Pule or Authority
Generally, a matai is a representative of a family who votes and acts on the family’s behalf and while members of the family have the power to state their opinions and make suggestions they have no right to exercise themselves the representative powers of the matai. Aumavae v. Moefaauo, 1 A.S.R. 38.
Matai is presumed to possess all powers usually possessed by virtue of such status until the contrary is shown by positive evidence. Tupua v. Aumavae, 1 A.S.R. 231.
Matai, as head of family, is in charge of family affairs and looked to by family for advice and direction. Sagapolu v. Tanielu, 1 A.S.R. 331.
Matai has obligation to be leader of family, to influence family to live peaceably and happily together, and to conduct himself in manner that warrants respect of members of his family and people in other families. Asuega Family v. Asuega, 1 A.S.R. 581.
Matai has obligation to treat family with kindness and should not display attitude of animosity toward them, and where matai fails in this obligation, he cannot evict family member for failure to render service, but upon filing of statement with court that he is willing to accept service from family member, it will then be duty of family member to begin rendering service to matai. Vaotuua Family v. Puletele, 3 A.S.R. 145.
Matai title holder has responsibility to get his family to live together in peace and harmony. Tali v. Tupeona, 4 A.S.R. 199.
Matai must reimburse family member who pays obligation out of his own funds, if obligation is legal and moral obligation of family as a whole. Leapaga v. Leapaga, 4 A.S.R. 470.
Court asked to intervene in family dispute will not substitute its judgment for that of the senior matai absent clear abuse of discretion. Toleafoa v. Tiapula, 7 A.S.R.2d 117.
In Samoan custom it is possible for a chief to be recognized as having authority over other chiefs and yet for the other chiefs to own their own land; some chiefs have political authority over a whole village or district but do not have a proprietary interest in the communal lands of other families. Seva`aetasi v. Fanene, 9 A.S.R.2d 118.
Obligation of senior matai to discuss family decisions with family members cannot be reduced to a formula. Gi v. Temu, 11 A.S.R.2d 137.
Matai has no inherent power to govern ecclesiastic organization simply by virtue of the traditional and secular office of the matai. Tele`a v. Savea, 11 A.S.R.2d 110.
In the context of Samoa in 1911, it would have been inconceivable that the term "and his successors or assignees" in a grant of land from one ranking chief to another was intended to give subject possessory rights to the control of an untitled heir of the grantee. Mose v. Tufele, 12 A.S.R.2d 31.
A family member may, in certain circumstances, seek judicial review of matai action, and the court will enjoin arbitrary, capricious, or illegal actions or those in which there has been an abuse of discretion on the part of the of the matai. Pen v. Lavata`i, 25 A.S.R.2d 164.
§8(3) Pule over Communal Lands
SEE REAL PROPERTY § 2 – COMMUNAL LANDS
Matai may use produce, profits and rents from land in which he has an interest by virtue of his title in any manner he wishes and the members of a family may not claim an interest in property purchased with such profits. Aumavae v. Moefaaui, 1 A.S.R. 38.
Matai may give land to other members of the family who may use the land but not dispose of it without the consent of the matai and if members abdandon land, land reverts to matai who may apportion it out to other family members. Mailo v. Fanene, 1 A.S.R. 191.
Fact members of family did not object to taking of lands by matai is evidence that they considered matai had pule over lands. Mailo v. Fuamaila, 1 A.S.R. 449.
Where greater matai gives lands to lesser matai as nofofanu, greater matai retains pule over lands, and where family of lesser matai deserts lands, greater matai may recover possession of it. Mailo v. Fuamaila, 1 A.S.R. 449.
Matai may parcel out communal land to those who serve him but such parceling out does not terminate matai’s pule over the property. Pisa v. Solaita, 1 A.S.R. 520.
Matai does not own family lands but is trustee for benefit of family so that land and fruits therefrom continue in family and their descendants. Satele v. Faga, 2 A.S.R. 26.
Fact claimant is son of former matai of family lands does not give him claim to lands since he may hae married into another family, and right to possession is determined by succeeding matais. Talo v. Tavi, 2 A.S.R. 63.
Common law of England applies to permission by matai to use and occupy family lands, since there is no United States law or Government of Samoa regulation applicable. Fiailoa v. Meredith, 2 A.S.R. 129.
Matai cannot convey land unless he complies with legislation on alienation of native lands. Tuafili v. Taape, 2 A.S.R. 155.
Matai cannot, either by law or pursuant to Samoan customs, convert communal family land into his own individually owned land upon his own authority. Teo v. Totoa, 2 A.S.R. 243.
Matai does not own family lands absolutely, but hold them as trustee for benefit of family. American Samoa v. Iose, 2 A.S.R. 638.
Under Samoan custom family member makes plantations on family land either at direction of or with consent of matai. American Samoa v. Iose, 2 A.S.R. 638.
Under Samoan custom, family members may not be put out of their house in order that other family members may occupy it. Malaea v. Fiapapalagi, 2 A.S.R. 651.
Under Samoan custom, matai has particular land for his residential fale which passes to succeeding matais. Mulitauaopele v. Paleafei, 3 A.S.R. 93.
Matai cannot mortgage communal land to secure his individual debt without approval of family, and such attempted mortgage is nullity. Mauga v. Soliai, 3 A.S.R. 108.
Where matai states that he is unwilling to accept service from family member, failure to render service is not grounds for eviction. Vaotuua Family v. Puletele, 3 A.S.R. 145.
Where matai has right to evict person from family lands, but such eviction would result in much hardship and would be unfair to person because he put much time and labor into land in reliance upon assignment to him of land by former matai, court will permit a period of continued occupancy in order to permit person to derive some profit from land and to remove personal property from land. Fano v. Teleuli, 3 A.S.R. 154.
Matai has duty to decide boundary between portions of communal land allocated to various members of his family. Malaetia v. Velega, 3 A.S.R. 265.
Where matai has authorized family member to construct fence on land, court must recognize this authority under Samoan custom, and where party damages fence, he must compensate family member who erected it. Yuhashi v. Lopeti, 3 A.S.R. 322.
Under Samoan custom, family members will visit matai who is sick in hospital and court finds it improbable that they would not inform him of building of houses on lands. Aumavae v. Tuitele, 3 A.S.R. 342.
Assignment of land to family member by former matai cannot be revoked by subsequent matai after family member has relied thereon and commenced erection of building. Taesali v. Samuela, 3 A.S.R. 359.
Matai cannot evict family member from land he has pule over because member cut one coconut tree and rebuilt and improved house without matai’s permission. In light of substantial service rendered matai, eviction over small disagreements is unjust and unreasonable. Tago v. Faleulu, 3 A.S.R. 370.
Court takes judicial notice of fact that matai sometimes consult with family before entering into leases and sometimes do not, but are not obligated to under custom. Haleck v. Tiumalu, 3 A.S.R. 380.
Appurtenant to the right to occupy house on communal land are rights to repair house, use of adjoining yard and have access to highway. Coffin v. Mageo, 4 A.S.R. 14.
Express or implied assignment of communal house does not give family member right to remove, replace or enlarge house without matai’s approval. Coffin v. Mageo, 4 A.S.R. 14.
Express or implied assignment of communal house and appurtenant land continues for life of family member, unless there is voluntary removal or matai orders removal after family meeting with all parties represented or reasonable decision by matai tha removal is for important family purpose if provision is made for specific alternate land, or other suitable arrangement made with sufficient time for family member to comply. Coffin v. Mageo, 4 A.S.R. 14.
Occupancy of land for substantial period by family member with implied consent of family matais, is construed as an assignment of land by implication. Coffin v. Mageo, 4 A.S.R. 14.
Matai may evict family member from communal land for failure to render service, if matai protects family member against wrongdoing by other family members. Coffin v. Mageo, 4 A.S.R. 14.
Returning assigned communal land to matai after one (1) year and abandoning land for nine (9) years thereafter constitutes surrender of assignee’s interest in land to matai. Talagu v. Te’o, 4 A.S.R. 121.
Although succeeding matai may not revoke assignment of communal land, if grantee continues to serve matai, he may reassign land if previous assignee surrenders his estate in land. Talagu v. Te’o, 4 A.S.R. 121.
Reassignment of surrendered communal land by matai to different assignee evidences effectuation of surrender and estops first assignee and matai from later challenging surrender. Talagu v. Te’o, 4 A.S.R. 121.
Communal law concept to surrender applies to relationship between matai with pule over land and assignee of family land – matai is ultimate reversioner of all assigned communal land. Talagu v. Te’o, 4 A.S.R. 121.
Code of American Samoa provides that customs of Samoa not in conflict with laws of Samoa or laws of United States concerning Samoa shall be preserved and there is not law which conflicts with matai’s authority to control family lands, as long as his pule is exercised fairly and justly. Tiumalu v. Scanlan, 4 A.S.R. 194.
Court takes judicial notice of Samoan custom that matai has control over family lands, that he has authority to assign piece of family land to member of family, and that it is not necessary to have family memeting to discuss assignment. Tiumalu v. Scanlan, 4 A.S.R. 194.
Matai has pule over family lands, but pule may be used only for benefit of family members and justly and fairly, and matai cannot throw family member off land unreasonably when he is mad at family member. Tali v. Tupeona, 4 A.S.R. 199.
Court is not authorized under Samoan custom to order family member off land upon petition of matai where family members has rendered service for many years except that matai has rejected service for past two years and where family member built house with own money and made improvements on it, which were not approved by matai. Tali v. Tupeona, 4 A.S.R. 199.
Where person has been given permission by deceased matai and present talking chief to occupy family lands, he should not be required to vacate lands by talking chief. Fuga v. Olive, 4 A.S.R. 283.
Claim of person ownership of communal land by individual chief, involved in person dispute with family, has no basis. Lualemana v. Chiefs of Aitulagi, 4 A.S.R. 383.
Matai is in control of family lands and may not alienate such lands without written approval of Governor. (CAS 1282). Fau v. Wilson, 4 A.S.R. 443.
Under Samoan custom, matai of family has jurisdiction over land of his family. Lutu v. Fuimaono, 4 A.S.R. 450.
Under Samoan custom, family lands are under jurisdiction of matai and young man in family has no authority to permit strangers to live on communal lands. Lolo v. Heirs of Sekio, 4 A.S.R. 477.
Under Samoan custom, matai may assign member of his family portion of communally owned land upon which to build house. Atualevao v. Masaniai, 4 A.S.R. 664.
House built on communal land solely by member of family and husband is individually owned house of builders. Leapaga v. Westbrook, 4 A.S.R. 748.
Under Samoan custom, matai, as head of family, has always had pule over land of family, and he customarily assigns certain piece of land to individual member by showing him certain area in village and permitting him to build his fale thereon. Leapaga v. Masalosalo, 4 A.S.R. 868.
Fact man has lived on land for thirty years does not relieve him of obligation under Samoan custom of rendering services to matai, and matai has right to evict man married into his family or blood relative from land if such person refuses to render customary services. Leapaga v. Masalosalo, 4 A.S.R. 868.
Senior matai of Samoan family should not take major steps with regard to family land without prior consultation of family, and particularly of family members directly affected. Talili v. Satele, 4 A.S.R.2d 23.
Absent special circumstances, senior matai of a Samoan family must respect the right of family members who have long resided on family land to continue residing on family land. Talili v. Satele, 4 A.S.R.2d 23.
Right of Samoan family member to occupy a particular piece of land is not absolute; senior matai of family may reallocate land within family by providing displaced family members with equivalent land. Talili v. Satele, 4 A.S.R.2d 23.
Court would not issue preliminary injunction forbidding senior matai of family to interfere with ongoing construction on family land, since to do so would invade the traditional decision making powers of the matai and effect a change in the status quo in advance of trial on the merits. Mailo v. Nua, 5 A.S.R.2d 59.
Where plaintiff family member admitted that he had other living quarters, refusal of court to issue a preliminary injunction forbidding senior matai of family to interfere with ongoing construction on family land would not be likely to cause irreparable injury. A.S.C.A. § 43.1301(j). Mailo v. Nua, 5 A.S.R.2d 59.
The authority of a matai over Samoan communal land is not terminated by designation of the land to the use of particular family members. Toleafoa v. Tiapula, 7 A.S.R.2d 117.
Generally, pule is the authority vested in the matai to protect and conserve the family's assets, and includes the power to divide and allocate land to individual members for their use. Lutu v. Taesaliali`i, 11 A.S.R.2d 80.
Under Samoan custom, the matai has the duty to exercise his pule over communal property for the benefit of the family. Lutu v. Taesaliali`i, 11 A.S.R.2d 80.
When a matai undermines the rights of a family member to use communal property in order to favor a non-family member, the matai acts inconsistently with his duty to exercise his pule for the benefit of family members. Lutu v. Taesaliali`i, 11 A.S.R.2d 80.
An assignment of land to a family member by a previous matai cannot be revoked by a new matai after it has been relied upon, except for good cause. Lutu v. Taesaliali`i, 11 A.S.R.2d 80.
A matai may evict a family member from communal lands for refusal to serve the matai. Lutu v. Taesaliali`i, 11 A.S.R.2d 80.
Pule of a matai over family land may not be exercised without limitation. Lutu v. Taesaliali`i, 11 A.S.R.2d 80.
Ordinarily an assignment of land by the matai to a family member is for the latter's lifetime, and it cannot be revoked and the family member deprived of its possession except for good cause. Gi v. Temu, 11 A.S.R.2d 137.
Unilateral and secret attempt by matai to give his daughter sole authority over family land to the exclusion of his successors in matai title would be inconsistent with Samoan tradition and contrary to territorial statutes regulating alienation of family land. A.S.C.A. §§ 37.0201 et seq. Gi v. Temu, 11 A.S.R.2d 137.
Matai should ordinarily consult with family, including especially those family members directly affected, before taking land assigned to a family member in order to use the land for some other family purpose. Gi v. Temu, 11 A.S.R.2d 137.
Matai cannot seize on minor disagreements as a pretext for expulsion of family members who have rendered long and loyal service. Gi v. Temu, 11 A.S.R.2d 137.
Although persons living with a family who are not blood members cannot always be expelled at the whim of the senior matai, non-members do not enjoy the benefit of the strong presumption that a family member may live on family land. Gi v. Temu, 11 A.S.R.2d 137.
Despite exceptions, the general rule is that senior matai has the authority to make decisions about family land. Gi v. Temu, 11 A.S.R.2d 137.
Courts will not interfere with decisions of senior matai regarding family land unless they are arbitrary, capricious, illegal, or abusive of discretion. Gi v. Temu, 11 A.S.R.2d 137.
Where matai attempted to solve a dispute between two groups of people living on his family land, there was no evidence that he was motivated other than by a desire to preserve peace within the family, and defendants responded by ignoring and disobeying his directives, threatening him with a knife, and inviting people with guns onto the land, court could not say that matai acted without good cause in ordering defendants to leave the land or that the order was illegal, arbitrary, capricious, or abusive of discretion. Gi v. Temu, 11 A.S.R.2d 137.
Sa`o of Samoan family should, in accordance with Samoan custom, have consulted family members before alienating family land. Vaimaona v. Tuitasi, 12 A.S.R.2d 68.
Family members who had not been consulted by sa`o who alienated family land might, in an action against the sa`o, prove their entitlement to an accounting, to compensation for any alienated lands previously assigned to them, and possibly even to removal of the sa`o from his matai title. Vaimaona v. Tuitasi, 12 A.S.R.2d 68.
Where sa`o had failed to consult with family members before alienating communal land, but had followed all statutory procedures for alienation of communal land including approval of the land commission and the governor, aggrieved family members could not secure the invalidation of the record title to the land in the new owner. Vaimaona v. Tuitasi, 12 A.S.R.2d 68.
Custom that major family decisions should be made in consultation with the whole family is not among those incorporated into statutory restrictions on the otherwise plenary powers of a sa`o over family lands. Vaimaona v. Tuitasi (Mem.), 13 A.S.R.2d 76.
Sa`o could not avoid his contract for the sale of land on the ground of his own violation of custom, and other family members' remedies were against the sa`o, not the purchaser. Vaimaona v. Tuitasi (Mem.), 13 A.S.R.2d 76.
Matai assigning or designating family land for the use of a particular member does not lose pule (authority) over such land. Lutu v. Semeatu, 13 A.S.R.2d 88.
Matai cannot alienate land without complying with certain statutory procedures, including the approval of the Governor of American Samoa. A.S.C.A. §§ 37.0201 et seq. Lutu v. Semeatu, 13 A.S.R.2d 88.
Matai assigning or designating family land for the use of a particular member does not lose pule (authority) over such land. Sivia v. Alaimalo, 13 A.S.R.2d 95.
Although the power of a matai over Samoan family land is substantial, it is not absolute. I`aulualo v. Siofaga (Mem.), 14 A.S.R.2d 26.
Matai may not evict family member without cause from a house on family land which the family member himself has built or substantially improved with permission of the matai or his predecessor in title. I`aulualo v. Siofaga (Mem.), 14 A.S.R.2d 26.
Notwithstanding the pre-eminent role of the matai in Samoan family land decisions, some situations arise in which the matai's power is subject to traditional limitations in favor of other family members, and on some of these occasions these limitations are enforceable in judicial proceedings. Talili v. Satele, 15 A.S.R.2d 5.
Judicial enforcement of traditional limitations on a matai's power over family land decisions is particularly appropriate when a matai begins an ambitious program of reallocation of family land to members of his own branch of a family at the expense of more distant relatives. Talili v. Satele, 15 A.S.R.2d 5.
A matai's assignment or designation of family land for a family member's use does not divest the matai of his authority over the land. Alaimalo v. Sivia, 17 A.S.R.2d 25.
A matai's alienation of land must comply with certain statutory procedures, including the approval of the Governor of American Samoa. A.S.C.A § 37.0204. Alaimalo v. Sivia, 17 A.S.R.2d 25.
During the vacancy of the family's matai title, no one family member or faction has the power to effect a radical transformation of the family's property without a clear consensus of the entire family. Fagasoaia v. Fanene, 17 A.S.R.2d 91.
While it was undoubtedly true before the coming of the present government that some matais, on some occasions, wielded the power to dispossess family members, at will, of lands they had long occupied and cultivated, their authority to do so was strictly limited by customary law. Talili v. Williams, 18 A.S.R.2d 23.
Although Samoan custom requires family consultation before a sa`o conveys communal land, the court cannot impose this as an additional condition to such a conveyance absent statutory direction from the Fono. A.S.C.A. §§ 1.0202, 37.0201 et seq. Vaimaona v. Tuitasi, 18 A.S.R.2d 88.
Whether a particular matai has the power to evict people living on communal land depends on many facts and circumstances and is generally not a question for summary judgment. T.C.R.C.P. 56. Fanene v. Fanene, 19 A.S.R.2d 69.
The matai alone has "pule" (authority) over family lands, and an individual family member simply cannot help himself to family lands in derogation of that authority. Leapagatele v. Malauulu, 19 A.S.R.2d 109.
A senior matai may assign a piece of family land for the use of individual family members, but such assignment does not terminate his control over the land. Sagapolutele v. Tala'i, 20 A.S.R.2d 16.
A matai may not revoke a previous matai's assignment of communal land without cause. Utu v. Alaimalo, 22 A.S.R.2d 92.
A matai does not lose pule over land assigned to family members, as an outright assignment of communal land is contrary to law and custom. Seventh Day Adventist Church of American Samoa v. Maneafaiga, 23 A.S.R.2d 150.
Under Samoan custom, the sa`o has pule (authority) to make decisions about family lands, including assignments of family land for the use of individual family members. Seventh Day Adventist Church of American Samoa v. Maneafaiga, 23 A.S.R.2d 150.
The sa'o of a family is the only person who is authorized to seek injunctive relief in actions concerning disputes or controversies over communal land; if the title is vacant or the sa'o is incapacitated, the application may be brought by (1) two blood matai male members of the family over age 18, or (2) if the family lacks two blood matai male members, two blood members of the family over age 18, if either is untitled or a female. A.S.C.A. § 41.1309(b). Savea v. Tunu, 24 A.S.R.2d 63.
A matai's authority or pule over family lands is not unfettered when it comes to dealing with the rights of family members; rather, it must be used for the benefit of family members and justly and fairly. It must not be used unreasonably and unjustly. Pen v. Lavata`i, 25 A.S.R.2d 164.
Having the general ability to administer the family lands but at the same time he has no authority to alienate land in his own right, a matai's authority is like that of a trustee in that he is to act for the benefit of the family. When a matai undermines the rights of a family member (a beneficiary of family property) to favor a non‑family member, he acts inconsistent with, and is in breach of, that duty to exercise his pule for the benefit of the family members. Pen v. Lavata`i, 25 A.S.R.2d 164.
A matai can only revoke an assignment of land, and thereby deprive a family member of its possession, for good cause. Pen v. Lavata`i, 25 A.S.R.2d 164.
A matai can, for a family purpose, order a person's removal from land if he meets certain requirements. Pen v. Lavata`i, 25 A.S.R.2d 164.
Ordinarily, the sa`o must bring actions for injunctive relief in matters pertaining to his family's communal land. A.S.C.A. § 43.1309(b). If the matai title of the sa`o is vacant, or if he is incapacitated, at least two blood male matai members of the family over age 18 must band to initiate such actions. Id. If the sa`o is effectively absent and the family does not have two adult blood male matai members, adult blood non-matai members of the family, again a minimum of two persons, can sue for injunctive relief. Id. Maiava v. Tufele, 30 A.S.R.2d 31.
To bring an action for injunctive relief when the title of sa`o is vacant, the two blood matai members of the family must have their matai titles in the family seeking the injunction. Maiava v. Tufele, 30 A.S.R.2d 31.
Eviction of a family from family land is a matter properly within the senior matai's competence; it is the matai who has primary jurisdiction over intra-family disputes involving use of family land. Pene v. Salualo, 31 A.S.R.2d 58.
The senior matai responsible for resolving intra-family disputes involving the use of family land, must have been bestowed the matai title in compliance with, among other things, the requirements of Title 1, Chapter 4, American Samoa Code Annotated, A.S.C.A. § 1.0401 et seq. Pene v. Salualo, 31 A.S.R.2d 58.
Only the sa`o is authorized in matters concerning separation agreements for communal land. In Re Estate of Makerita Shimasaki, 31 A.S.R.2d 195.
§8(4) Family’s Obligation of Service
Member of family living on family land is obligated to render service to matai, and matai has obligation to protect family member against wrongdoings by other members of family, an donly matai who performs this obligation is entitled to service. Vaotuua Family v. Puletele, 3 A.S.R. 145.
Where matai states that he is unwilling to accept service from family member, failure to render service is not grounds for eviction. Vaotuua Family v. Puletele, 3 A.S.R. 145.
Under Samoan custom, when person of one family occupies lands of another family, he should render service to matai of other family. Fano v. Teleuli, 3 A.S.R. 154.
Widow living on communal land of deceased husband has duty to render service to family matai and behave as if she were a blood member of family. Vaimaona Family v. Meafou, 3 A.S.R. 228.
Court is not authorized under Samoan custom to order family member off land upon petition of matai where family member has rendered service for many years except that matai has rejected service for past two years and where family member built house with own money and made improvements on it, which were not approved by matai. Tali v. Tupeona, 4 A.S.R. 199.
Under Samoan custom if there are two matais in family and one dies, surviving matai represents entire family in village counsel and receives service as representative of deceased matai until he has successor, which means that person owing services to deceased matai should render such service to his successor. Fuga v. Olive, 4 A.S.R. 283.
Where person fails to render service to talking chief as representative of deceased matai to whom he previously rendered services because he did not believe custom required him to do so and because deceased matai had relieved him of such obligation, he cannot be forced to vacate premises by talking chief if he, upon learning of obligation, renders service to talking chief. Fuga v. Olive, 4 A.S.R. 283.
Service to matai and family under Samoan custom is not a contractual obligation and compensation is available under contractual theory. Malaga v. Alaga, 4 A.S.R. 735.
Member of matai family living on communal land should serve matai of family pursuant to Samoan custom. Leapaga v. Westbrook, 4 A.S.R. 748.
§8(5) Removal
SEE MATAI TITLE DISPUTES § 10 – REMOVAL OF MATAI
§8(6) Title Disputes
SEE MATAI TITLE DISPUTES
§ 9 Elections
SEE ELECTIONS
A decision reached “in accordance with Samoan custom” need not receive unanimous support. Eseroma v. Faresa, 31 A.S.R.2d 169.