7ASR3d281
PRITCHARD as Administrator of the ESTATE of FUIAVAILIILI WILLIAM PRITCHARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
All testate and
intestate successors of FRANK PRITCHARD, JR., and FRANK W. PRITCHARD, SR.,
deceased, and DOES 1-10, Defendants.
________________________________
All testate and
intestate successors of
FRANK PRICTCHARD, JR.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ESTATE OF
FUIAVAILIILI WILLIAM PRITCHARD,
and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
High
Court of American Samoa
Land
and Titles Division
LT
No. 27-95
LT
No. 36-95
October
7, 2003
[1] A valid
registered land title is conclusive evidence to the world that the registered
titleholder owns the land.
[2] A land title registration is
presumptively valid.
[3]
Where questions existed as to whether deceased had properly registered land,
but heirs did not dispute that deceased had held land as his individually-owned
land, Court would treat land as individually-owned property of deceased for
purposes of intestate succession and quiet title action amongst heirs, but
without prejudice to parties outside of action who might assert claim to land.
Before
RICHMOND, Associate Justice, ATIULAGI, Associate Judge, and TAPOPO, Associate
Judge.
Counsel: For Faatamaali`i Pritchard and Estate
of Fuiavailiili William Pritchard, Charles V. Ala`ilima
For all testate and intestate successors of
Frank Pritchard, Jr. and Frank W. Pritchard, Sr., pro se
OPINION
AND ORDER
This action
came regularly for trial on September 11, 2003.
Counsel for Faatamaali`i Pritchard and Estate of Fuiavialiili William
Pritchard (together “William” or “William’s Estate”) was present. Some successors of Frank Pritchard, Jr.
(“Frank, Jr.” or “Frank, Jr.’s Successors”) and Frank W. Pritchard, Sr.
(“Frank, Sr.” or “Frank, Sr.’s Successors”) were present. However, though they were afforded ample
opportunity to retain another attorney during several months immediately
preceding the trial, none of Frank, Jr.’s and Frank, Sr.’s Successors did so,
and none of them participated in the trial.
In this context, the principal consequence of a judgment in these
actions will be to provide guidance regarding the lands at issue for the
administration and distribution of the estates of William and Frank, Jr., and
perhaps Frank, Sr. as well.
Ultimate Issues
In 1995, William’s Estate commenced LT
No. 27-95 against Frank, Jr. and Frank, Sr.’s Successors to quiet title in the
name of William’s Estate and Frank, Jr. to a portion of land known as Fuamete,
consisting of approximately of approximately 4.614 acres (“4.614 acre parcel”),
in Leone, American Samoa, and to quiet title in name of William’s Estate
another portion of Fuamete, consisting of approximately 12.51 acres (“12.51
acre parcel”).
A short time
later in the same year, Frank, Jr. countered with LT No. 36-95 against
William’s Estate to nullify the registration of the 12.51 acre parcel, quiet
title to this parcel in the name of Frank, Jr. and his siblings, and to enjoin
William’s Estate and heirs from alienating this parcel.
On December 4,
1995, we denied Frank, Jr.’s application for a preliminary injunction in LT No.
36-95 and consolidated the two actions.
Frank, Jr. died while the actions were pending, and all of his testate
and intestate successors were added as parties in both actions. On August 19, 2003, we denied the motion of
William’s Estate for summary judgment to adjudicate the title to the 4.614 acre
parcel as William’s and Frank, Jr.’s individually-owned land, jointly held by
them as tenants in common, and to approve a proposed partition of this parcel
between William’s Estate and Frank, Jr.’s Successors as the immediate
consequence. The denial was principally
based on factual issues pertaining to the appropriateness of the proposed
distribution of this parcel. The actions
then proceeded to trial.
The ultimate
issues, then, in order to proceed in a systematic manner with the inheritance
of the two parcels, are: (1) the validity of the two registrations, (2)
ownership of the two parcels, and (3) the propriety of the proposed partition
of the 4.614 acre parcel.
Discussion
1. The 4.614 Acre Parcel
[1] William and Frank,
Jr. were brothers and are deceased.
William died intestate and, apparently, Frank, Jr. likewise. Frank, Sr. was their father and also,
apparently, died intestate. On July 2,
1964, the Registrar of Titles registered the 4.614 acre parcel as William’s and
Frank, Jr.’s individually-owned land.
The Territorial Registrar issued the Certificate of Registration on
September 11, 1987, with an effective retroactive date of July 2, 1964. A valid registered land title is conclusive
evidence to the world that the registered titleholder owns the land. Lualemana v. Atualevao, 16 A.S.R.2d
34, 40 (Land & Titles Div. 1990).
The Territorial Registrar’s file in evidence on this registration shows
that the requirements of the registration process in effect in 1964 were
strictly followed. The registration of
the 4.614 acre parcel was and is valid and, therefore, we find that preceding
their respective deaths, William and Frank, Jr. owned this parcel as
individually-owned land, jointly held as tenants in common.
In order to
facilitate inheritance of this parcel, William’s Estate has had the original
survey retraced and divided two equal lots, Lot 1 at the West end and Lot 2 at
the East end, as shown in Exhibits No. 3 and No. 4 in evidence. William’s Estate proposes that Lot 1 be
partitioned for inheritance by Frank Jr.’s successors and that Lot 2 be
partitioned and included in William’s Estate for inheritance by his heirs. The boundary between the two equally sized
lots is positioned to maintain improvements that belonged to Frank, Jr. and his
family members on Lot 1 and maintain improvements that belonged to William and
his family on Lot 2. We find that the
proposed partition of the 4.614 acre parcel into Lot 1 and Lot 2 provides for
an equitable distribution by inheritance of the parcel.
Accordingly,
Lot 2 is properly an asset of William’s Estate for purposes of ultimate
distribution to his heirs, and Lot 1 is properly an asset of Frank, Jr.’s
estate for ultimate distribution to Frank, Jr.’s Successors.
2. The 12.51 Acre Parcel
[2]
The Territorial Registrar registered the 12.51 acre parcel as William’s
individually owned land on May 2, 1990.
A land title registration is presumptively valid. Ifopo v. Siatu`u, 12 A.S.R.2d 24,
27-28 (Land & Titles Div. 1989).
However, unlike the registration of the 4.614 acre parcel, the record of
this registration in the Territorial Registrar’s file in evidence raises
questions about the registration process.
First,
the Surveyor and Pulenu`u Certificate, dated October 28, 1980, was purportedly
signed by “Atofau” as the pulenu`u of Leone.
While the records of the Secretary of Samoan Affairs in evidence show
that Punaloa Atofau was the pulenu`u in 1990, the records also show that
Toilolo Iereneo held that position when the survey was actually conducted in
1980. Second, the affidavit of the
Territorial Registrar’s notice posting does not clearly indicate that the
notice was posted at two public places in Leone, as required by law in
1990.
[3] Accordingly, we hold that the
registration of the 12.51 acre parcel did not and does not provide conclusive
notice of ownership to the world.
Nonetheless, the apparent deficiencies in the registration process do
not of themselves override actual ownership.
Te`o v. Sotoa, 5 A.S.R.2d 90, 97-98 (Trial Div. 1987). The evidence presented shows that William
owned the land as individually-owned land.
Neither Frank, Jr.’s nor Frank Sr.’s Successors offered any
contradictory evidence. Therefore, we
find that William owned the 12.51 acre parcel as individually-owned land, and
that this parcel is also properly included in William’s Estate for purposes of
further administration and prospective distribution to his heirs.
There are
indications in other actions pending before this Court that persons outside of
the Pritchard family have claims to ownership of this parcel or to portions of
it. Therefore, this determination is
without prejudice to the determination of any ownership rights to this parcel
by persons outside of the Pritchard family.
Order
1. The title
registration of the 4.614 acre parcel as William’s and Frank, Jr.’s
individually-owned land, jointly held by them as tenants in common, is valid
and conclusive evidence to the world of their joint ownership. This parcel is partitioned, as shown in
Exhibits No. 3 and No. 4 in evidence, into Lot 1 now owned by Frank, Jr.’s
estate to be inherited apparently by Frank, Jr.’s Successors, and Lot 2 now
owned by William’s Estate to be inherited by his heirs.
2. The title
registration of the 12.51 acre parcel as William’s individually-owned land is
not effective as notice to the world of his ownership. However, as between the parties to this
action, William owned this parcel as his individually-owned land, and the
parcel is now owned by William’s Estate to be inherited by his heirs. This holding is, however, without prejudice
to persons outside of the Pritchard family to contest the ownership of this
parcel.
It is so
ordered.
*********