5ASR3d237
FILIUPU A. OFISA, Claimant,
v.
POGISA TUIOLEMOTU, Administrator of the Estate of
AUKUSO M. TUIVETA, and TE`I TAUFA`ASE, Objectors.
______________________________
POGISA TUIOLEMOTU, Administrator of the Estate of
AUKUSO M. TUIVETA, Claimant,
v.
LOGOAI SIAKI, AINA SAOLUAGA NUA,
FILIUPU A. OFISA, and LAIE MATA`UTIA, Objectors.
High Court of American Samoa
Land and Titles Division
LT No. 22-94
LT
No. 14-97
June
18, 2001
Before RICHMOND, Associate Justice, and SAGAPOLUTELE,
Associate Judge.
Counsel: For Claimant/Objector Filiupu A. Ofisa, Aumoeualogo
S. Salanoa
For
Claimant/Objector Pogisa Tuiolemotu, Administrator of the Estate of Aukuso M. Tuiveta,
and Objector Logoai Siaki, Aitofele T. Sunia
For Objector Te`i Taufa`ase, Pro Se
For Objector
Ama Saoluaga Nua, Tauivi Tuinei
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION
The Opinion and Order of the
Court was entered on June 18, 2001. Claimant/objector Filiupu A. Ofisa
(“Filiupu”) and objector Ama Saoluaga Nua (“Ama”) filed timely motions for
reconsideration or new trial. The
motions were heard on July 20, 2001.
Both Filiupu and Ama submitted their
motions on their written arguments at the hearing. We have considered the
written arguments and will deny the motions without further comment, except in
two particulars.
First, Ama claims that neither he nor
his counsel were notified of the date of the Court’s site visit. The Court is assured that the staff of the
Clerk of the Court notified the offices of all counsel by telephone of the site
visit scheduled on May 11, 2001. Then,
in accordance with the Court’s instructions, the Court inspected the claimed
land areas on the scheduled date, with the assistance of a spokesperson
representing each party, Ama included.
Filiupu’s counsel was also present.
Second, Ama argues that, with the
Court’s concurrence, claimant/objector Pogisa Tuiolemotu (“Pogisa”) abused her authority as the
administrator of the estate of Aukuso M. Tuiveta (“the estate”) when she
withdrew the estate’s land claim in favor of the claim of objector Logoai Siaki
(“Logoai”) to the identical land. Though
contradicted by the other claimants, Ama fails to recognize that there was
solid testimony that Aukuso N. Tuiveta (“Aukuso”) cultivated the area claimed
by Logoai as the Logoai family’s communal land, knowing full well that he did
so under the authority of the Logoai title.
Aukuso initially claimed the land as his individually owned land. However, any expectation he may have harbored
that the underlying communal landowner would accede to his claim unimpeded,
especially in a communal-land area like tradition-bound Faga, was unrealistic
and did not succeed.
Ama also
ignores the fact that the estate was probated while the present actions were
pending, with Pogisa as administrator and under an attorney’s guidance. The estate was closed and its assets were
distributed without inclusion of the land Aukuso initially claimed as his
individually owned land in the present cases.
Estate of Aukuso Tuiveta Misa, PR No. 42-98 (Trial Div.
Oct. 8, 1999) (Amended Judgment Settling First and Final Account and Report of
Administrator and of Final Distribution).
Both
motions for reconsideration or new trial are accordingly denied.
It is so
ordered.