5ASR3d215
OLO U. MISILAGI LETULI, Claimant,
v.
PILI POPO LETULI, ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, MITIOMAAUGA
SALAVE`A, FONOTI TAFAIFA,
and IOSEFO KAPELI IULI, Counterclaimants.
[In re the Matai Title “LETULI” of
the Village of Iliili]
High Court of American
Samoa
Land and
Titles Division
MT No. 11-98
February 12, 2001
[1] To determine successor to matai title “Letuli” of Village of
Iliili, Court evaluated qualifications of four candidates according to mandated
criteria in statutory order of priority: (a) best hereditary right; (b) wish of
majority or plurality of family clans; (c) forcefulness, character, and
personality, and knowledge of Samoan customs; and (d) value to the family,
village and country.
[2] Each candidate is blood member of
Letuli family and is therefore qualified under hereditary right criteria to
hold “Letuli” title. Nonetheless, to compare relative strength of candidates’
blood connection to title at issue, Court has traditionally applied judicial
rule that distance of each candidate’s relationship is measured from closest
preceding titleholder in candidate’s lineage.
[3] Court held
that Olo U. Misilagi Letuli should be registered as Letuli of Village of Iliili
as he prevailed over other candidates on criterion of personal characteristics
and knowledge of Samoan customs, and value of prospective service, while
equally entitled by hereditary right along with two other candidates.
Before RICHMOND, Associate Justice, LOGOAI, Chief
Associate Judge, ATIULAGI, Associate Judge, and TAUANU`U, Temporary Associate
Judge.
Counsel: For Claimant Olo U. Misilagi Letuli, Afoa L.
Su`esu`e Lutu
For Counterclaimant Pili 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
Fuimaono
For Counterclaimant Iosefo Kapeli Iuli,
Isa-Lei Iuli
OPINION
AND ORDER
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 Iliili was noticed and attracted seven counterclaims. The counterclaimant Ufuti Fa`afetai Ieremia
dropped out, however, by failing to file with the court answers to the
questionnaire required in matai title
cases. Later, before trial,
counterclaimant Fugaipaono V. Tagaloa withdrew. Trial began on January 25,
2000, and initially concluded on February 3, 2000. The remaining six candidates and all counsel
were present throughout this phase of the trial.
The Court deliberated and, on March
24, 2000, returned the selection process to the family to hold one or more
meaningful family meetings to select the successor matai. On March 27, 2000, an
amended order replaced the first order solely to correct the inadvertent
omission of the name of the pro se
counterclaimant, Mitiomaauga Salave`a (“Mitiomaauga”), from the list of
counsel.
We also took cognizance of two
special collateral matters in the return order.
First, counterclaimant Eni P.R. Faleomavaega (“Faleomavaega”) did not
timely file with the Territorial Registrar a claim supported by at least 25
members of the family, which numbers far in excess of 25 members, as required
by A.S.C.A. § 1.0407(b), and therefore failed to become an eligible candidate. Faleomavaega filed a motion for a new trial
on this eligibility issue, which we denied on June 6, 2000. Second, we noted
the untimely demise of counterclaimant Iosefo Kapeli Iuli on March 6, 2000.
On September 5, 2000, the four
remaining candidates, Olo and counterclaimants Pili Popo Letuli (“Pili”), Mitiomaauga Salave`a
(“Mitiomaauga”), and Fonoti Tafaifa (“Fonoti”),
jointly informed the Court that the family met on August 19, 2000,
and was still unable to select the successor to the “Letuli” title. They therefore requested that we continue
with the judicial selection process.
Then, on December 11, 2000, we resumed the trial by taking further
evidence solely concerning the issue of the wish of the majority or plurality of
the family clans in choosing the successor.
Discussion
[1] From the
evidence presented on December 11, 2000, we find that after due notice was
given, the Letuli family met on August 19, 2000, to select the successor to the
“Letuli” title. On this occasion, the
family thoroughly discussed the issue and was unable to reach agreement on the
selection of the next titleholder. The
family carried out the Court’s direction to engage in a meaningful process to
choose a new sa`o and has not succeeded.
Accordingly, we will now evaluate the qualifications of the four
remaining candidates, according to the mandated statutory criteria, and
adjudicate the issue. We discuss the
criteria in the statutory order of their priority.
1. Best Hereditary Right
[2] Each of
the four remaining candidates is a blood member of the Letuli family and is
thus qualified under the hereditary right criteria to hold the “Letuli”
title. The Court has traditionally
applied an artificial rule to compare the relative strength of the candidates’
blood connection to the title at issue.
Under this judicial rule, the distance of each candidate’s relationship
is measured from the closest preceding titleholder in the candidate’s lineage. Olo is Letuli Pili’s grandson and has a 1/4th
relationship. Pili is Letuli Tagaloa’s
grandson and has the same 1/4th connection.
Mitiomaauga is Letuli Tuiaana’s grandson and likewise has a 1/4th
relationship. Fonoti is Letuli Alaese’s
great-great-granddaughter and has a more remote 1/16th relationship to a former
titleholder.
On this basis, we find that Olo,
Pili, and Mitiomaauga equally share the best hereditary right to succeed to the
“Letuli” title, and Fonoti trails them.
2. Wish of the
Majority or Plurality of the Family Clans
The Letuli family presently
recognizes three clans within the extended ranks of the family, Manualii,
Kenese, and Faalogo. Olo and Mitiomaauga are members of the Manualii clan. Pili belongs to the Kenese clan, and Fonoti
is in the Faalogo clan. Based on the
clear lack of a decision by the clans on selecting a successor to the “Letuli”
title, none of the four candidates has the support of either a majority or
plurality of the present-day traditional clans of the family.
We find, therefore, that none of the
four candidates fares any better than the other three on the clan wish
criterion. The criterion is a wash.
3. Forcefulness,
Character, Personality, and Knowledge of Samoan
Customs
We have carefully considered the four
candidates’ backgrounds and careers, but will not set forth a detailed list of
their accomplishments. Suffice it to say that each of them has experienced a
purposeful and successful life in significantly different directions from the
other three.
Judging this evidence along with the candidates’ demeanor,
we first find that each is of good character.
We likewise find that their knowledge of Samoan customs is essentially
equal. We do find that Olo and Fonoti
have a decided advantage in forcefulness, and that Olo has a particularly
engaging personality.
On the
evidence, we rate Olo first on the personal attributes criterion and Fonoti
next, by slight margins over Pili and Mitiomaauga.
4.
Value to the Family, Village and Country
Each of
the four candidates is quite capable of leading the Letuli family. The
distinguishing factor is that Olo is a veteran of a more lengthy record of
responsible leadership positions. On
this basis, we find that Olo’s value to his family, village, and the territory
is presently more pronounced over the other three candidates.
We
therefore also award the leadership potential criterion to Olo.
Conclusion
[3] Olo, Pili, and Mitiomaauga are equally entitled by hereditary
right to the “Letuli” title and prevail over Fonoti on this highest priority
criterion for judicial selection of a successor matai titleholder. None of
the candidates prevail over the others on the majority or plurality clan wish
criterion. Due to his forcefulness and
personality, Olo slightly prevails over the other three candidates on the
personal characteristics and knowledge of Samoan custom criterion. He also has the present advantage on the
value of prospective service criterion.
Accordingly, we will award the “Letuli” title to Olo.
Order
The
“Letuli” title is awarded to Olo U. Misilagi Letuli. The Territorial Registrar shall register the
“Letuli” title in Olo’s name, provided that he has resigned from and is not
holding any other registered title.
It is
so ordered.