5ASR3d221
STEVEN SIUFANUA, for and on behalf of the CHILDREN of LEE
LIAE SIUFANUA and DUWAYNE SIUFANUA, Plaintiffs,
v.
ESTATE OF LIAE LILI`I SIUFANUA, MATE M. SIUFANUA JACKSON,
TALIVE SIUFANUA, MATAATA LILII
SIUFANUA, ESTELLA LILII SIUFANUA REID, MELITA SIUFANUA
LEUDER, TAFAOMANIFO LILII SIUFANUA, ARVAY M. SIUFANUA, PULEONO LANA SIUFANUA
BURGESS, and WENDALL FUIFATU SIUFANUA, Defendants.
______________________________
Estate of LIAE LILI`I SIUFANUA, Deceased.
High
Court of American Samoa
Land
and Titles Division
LT
No. 15-99
PR
No. 08-96
April
23, 2001
[1] The
cardinal purpose of the doctrine of equitable adoption is to justify the
expectations of individuals when their personal relationships fail the test of
traditional legal concepts, and to thereby avoid serious hardship.
[2] Courts
apply the doctrine of equitable adoption only when de facto relationships are present.
[3] An
equitable adoption can be found when a child has stood from an age of tender
years in a position exactly equivalent
to a formally adopted child.
[4] Where
grandparents had raised two biological grandchildren as their own children,
where extended family accepted the de
facto parent-child relationship, where the biological mother and siblings
of the two grandchildren expressly acknowledged the parent-child relationship,
where public and church records relating to the births, marriages, and deaths
of the two grandchildren stated that the grandparents were their parents, and
where recorded document signed by all other children recognized the two
grandchildren as the deceased grandparents’ children, Court considered
circumstances appropriate for application of the equitable adoption doctrine
and considered the two grandchildren to be “children” of the grandparents under
the deceased grandfather’s will.
Before
RICHMOND, Associate Justice, and SAGAPOLUTELE, Associate
Judge.
Counsel: For Administrator and Defendants, David E. Vargas
For Plaintiffs, Steven Siufanua, Pro Se
OPINION
AND ORDER
Liae Lili`i
Si`ufanua (“Liae”) died on
December 12, 1992. At the time of his
death, Liae was domiciled in Hawaii, but
his estate included property in American Samoa, individually-owned land (“the
land”) registered with the Territorial Registrar under the name “Liae Lili`i
& children.” The land, named
“Ala`iasu,” contains approximately 18.623 acres, and is located in the Village
of Faleniu. The proceeding to probate
Liae’s will, PR No. 8-96, was commenced on March 6, 1996. On April 25, 1996, Arvay N. Siufanua (“Arvay”), one of Liae’s daughters,
was duly appointed administrator of
the estate with the will
annexed.
On June 1,
1998, Arvay filed her final accounting and proposed distribution of the
estate. Steven Siufanua (“Steven”),
the plaintiff in LT No. 15-99, notified Arvay that heirs of two of Liae’s
grandchildren, Lee Liae Siufanua (“Lee”)
and Duwayne Siufanua Lili`i (“Duwayne”),
both then deceased, claimed interests in the land as registered. As a result, on October 19, 1998, the Court
approved Arvay’s final
accounting and ordered distribution of Liae’s interest in the land to the
beneficiaries according to Liae’s will, subject to a judicial declaration, upon
application by the deceased grandchildren’s heirs to the Land and Titles
Division, of the deceased grandchildren’s interests in the land.
On July 7,
1999, in the absence of the anticipated declaratory relief action, Arvay moved
to dismiss Steven’s objections to her distribution. However, Steven responded
by filing LT No. 15-99 for declaratory relief on July 30, 1999. Trial was held on May 15, 2000. Steven and Arvay, with her counsel, were
present.
Discussion
Liae’s will was
duly executed in Hawaii, on January 24, 1990.
The will names Liae’s immediate family as his heirs. In addition to his spouse Liva Pilimai
Siufanua (“Liva”), there are nine children: Mate M. Siufanua Jackson (“Mate”), Talive Siufanua (“Talive”), Mataata Lilii Siufanua
(“Mataata”), Estella Lilii Siufanua Reid (“Estella”), Melita Siufanua Lueder (“Melita”), Tafaomanifo Lilii
Siufanua (“Tafaomanifo”), Arvay, Puleono Lana Siufanua Burgess (“Puleono”), and
Wendall Fuifata Siufanua (“Wendall”); two grandchildren: Lee and Duwayne; and
two deceased children; Liae Siufanua and Muaaufaalele Siufanua, who died in
infancy. Liae’s “personal
representative,” in the preference listed, was to be Mate, Talive, or Mataata. Since all three resided outside of American
Samoa, Arvay, a resident of the Territory, was selected to be the administrator
for the probate proceedings here.
The residuary
clause of the will governs the disposition of Liae’s interest in the land. It provides that the residue of the estate,
real and personal, is devised in equal shares to Mate, Talive, Mataata,
Estella, Melita, Tafaomanifo, Arvay, Puleono, Wendall, Lee and Duwayne. Thus, Liae’s interest in the land devolves in
equal 1/11th shares to these eleven beneficiaries.
The registration
certificate shows that the land is owned by “[Liae] & children.” Without a joint tenancy provision, Liae and
his children held the title to the land as tenants in common. If the children are the nine living children
named in the will, then Liae and each child held an undivided 1/10th interest
in the land, and Liae’s undivided 1/10th interest would devolve to the named
beneficiaries in the will in eleven equal shares. The heirs of Lee and Duwayne would first acquire
any title to the land only by this devise.
On the other hand, if Lee and Duwayne are included as Liae’s children,
as Steven contends, then Liae and each child held an undivided 1/12th interest
in the land, and Liae’s undivided 1/12th interest would still devolve to the
beneficiaries in eleven equal shares.
The devise would add to the existing title of the heirs of Lee and
Duwayne.
[1] Resolution of the
issue depends upon the application of the doctrine of equitable adoption to the
factual situation in this case. This
court applied the doctrine for inheritance purposes in the Estate of
Fuimaono, 23 A.S.R.2d 33 (Trial Div. 1992).
The cardinal purpose of the doctrine is to justify the expectations of
individuals when their personal relationships fail the test of traditional
legal concepts, and to thereby avoid serious hardship. Homer
E. Clark, Jr., The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States § 25.9, at 926 (2d ed.
1988). The purpose is especially served
“when the person whose interests are at stake was a child when the operative facts
occurred.” Id.
[2-3] Courts apply the
doctrine only when de facto
relationships are present. Id. at
927. An equitable adoption can be found
when a child “has stood from an age of tender years in a position exactly equivalent to a formally
adopted child.” Wheeling Dollar Sav. & Trust Co. v. Singer, 250 S.E.2d 369, 373-74 (W. Va.
1979). Most courts require proof of the de facto relationship by clear and
convincing evidence. Clark, supra, at 927.
Lee and Duwayne
were the biological children of Thurman W. Jackson and Mate, a daughter of Liae
and Liva. Thus, they were the biological
grandchildren of Liae and Liva. Liae’s
will recognizes the natural relationships.
Clearly, however, Lee and Duwayne were raised from infancy by Liae and
Liva as if Lee and Duwayne were their own children. The extended family as a whole appears to
have accepted the de facto
parent-child relationship between Liae and Liva as parents and Lee and Duwayne
as their children. Certainly Mate, their
mother, and three of the biological siblings of Lee and Duwayne have expressly
acknowledged the parent-child relationships of Lee and Duwayne with Liae and
Liva. Public and church records relating to the births, marriages, and deaths
of Lee and Duwayne also state that Liae and Liva are their parents.
Telling
evidence in the context of this family situation is the “Acknowledgement of
ownership and subdivision of Land Alaiasu” recorded with the Territorial
Registrar on November 15, 1993. This
document recognizes the eleven beneficiaries under the will as Liae’s children
and as common owners of the land. It was
signed by all eleven beneficiaries Mate, Talive, Mataata, Estella, Melita,
Tafaomanifo, Arvay, Puleono, Wendall, Lee, and Duwayne.
Lee and Duwayne
might be considered Liae’s children adopted in accordance with Samoan custom,
with all attendant rights. See Leasiolagi v. Fao, 2 A.S.R. 451, 452-53 (Trial Div.
1949). In any event, we are persuaded
that this is an appropriate situation to apply the equitable adoption
principle. Liae and Liva raised Lee and
Duwayne as their children. It would be
unnecessarily harsh to deprive the heirs of Lee and Duwayne of ownership rights
in the land based upon the acknowledged de
facto parent-child relationships of Lee and Duwayne with Liae and Liva and
the expectations of Lee and Duwayne to be among the common owners of the land.
It is so ordered.
**********