7ASR3d220
FALEULA FANO REAVIS, Plaintiff,
v.
MATALENA LELEUA, MALIA ASIATA, MAUA
ASIATA,
and FIAPIA MEREDITH, Defendants.
High Court of American Samoa
Land and Titles Division
LT
No. 06-01
March
21, 2003
[1] A Samoan
family’s sa`o controls the occupancy
and use of the family’s communal land, in a manner similar to a trustee for the
benefit of the family’s members as a whole.
[2] The sa`o’s
authority extends to making customary assignments of the occupancy and use of
portions the family’s communal lands, usually to family members. His decisions on customary assignments of the
family’s communal lands are final, subject only to judicial review for
arbitrary and capricious actions.
[3] Ordinarily, so long as the
customary assignee of a portion of the family’s communal land provides tautua (“customary service”) to the sa`o, the assignment endures for the
assignee’s lifetime.
[4] The sa`o also retains authority to reassign
the portion to another in the event of the assignee’s prolonged nonuse of the
premises.
[5] Where there has been a lengthy history of
violence, threatened violence, harassment, and annoyance by one party toward
another, the Court found that money damages were inadequate and a permanent
injunction was the most suitable legal remedy.
Before RICHMOND, Associate Justice,
SAGAPOLUTELE, Associate Justice, and TUPUIVAO, Associate Judge.
Counsel:
For Plaintiff, Katopau T. Ainu`u
For Defendants, Matalena Leleua, Malia Asiata,
and Maua Asiata. S. Salanoa Aumoeualogo
For Defendant Fiapia Meredith,
Arthur Ripley, Jr.
OPINION
AND ORDER
This is an interfamily controversy involving the Fano
family’s communal land. The Secretary of
Samoan Affairs unsuccessfully mediated the matter and, on October 5, 2000,
issued a certificate of irreconcilable dispute.
Then, plaintiff Faleula Fano Reavis (“Faleula”) commenced this action to
evict defendants Matalena Leleua (“Matalena”), Malia Asiata (“Malia”), Maua
Asiata (“Maua”) (collectively “the occupants”) and Fiapia Meredith (“Fiapia”) from the portion of
communal land at issue, and to recover damages based on alleged tortious
actions. The action came on regularly
for trial. Both counsel were present.
Findings of Fact
Faleula is a blood member of the Fano family o the
Village of Faga`alu. She was born and raised on the Fano family’s
communal land. In the mid-1950s, her
family moved to a dwelling on a plot of Fano family land in Faga`alu (“the
upper mountainside site”) assigned in the recognized Samoan customary manner to
her mother, and perhaps her family as well, by the Fano family’s sa`o (“senior chief” or “head
chief”). The upper mountainside site of
land is a small level area partially up the Faga`alu side at the mountain above
Blunts Point at the western side of the entrance to Pago Pago Bay. Beyond a point partway up the mountainside,
the plot is accessible only by a dirt footpath.
Faleula left American Samoa in 1962 when she was age
17 years. Her mother and other family
members lived in the family house on the upper mountainside site at that
time. At some point before her death in 1965, however, Faleula’s mother
moved from the residence on the upper mountainside site to another house on
Fano family communal land closer to the main public road located along the
shoreline at the base of the mountain in Faga`alu (“the lower mountainside
site”). However, some family members
remained on the upper mountainside site at that time. While living outside American Samoa, Faleula
married Charles C. Reavis (“Charles”), and they lived in the U.S. mainland
until 1995. Then, after their youngest
daughter graduated from high school, they relocated to American Samoa,
intending to permanently reside here.
While she resided abroad, Faleula only visited
American Samoa occasionally. She came in
1965 during her mother’s last illness.
Some of Faleula’s family members were still then living in the house on
the upper mountainside site. During this
visit, she informed the incumbent family sa`o,
Fano Shimasaki, of her desire to eventually return and live on the upper
mountainside site. At some point between
1965 and 1972 however, all of Faleula’s family members vacated the house on the
upper mountainside site. Faleula next
visited in 1981 and 1982. On both
occasions, she found Matalena and her family living on the upper mountainside
site. However, she reaffirmed with Fano
Shimasaki her desire to live there when she permanently returned
Matalena was born and raised in [Western] Samoa. Her father is the sa`o of her family there, and she still maintains contact with
them. Matalena is not a blood member of
the Fano family, but she is related to Fano Shimasaki’s mother. She married Iosefo Asiata (“Iosefo”) in
1949, and Malia and Maua are their children.
Instigated in substantial part by Fiapia, Fano Shimasaki’s sister,
Matalena and her family came to American Samoa in 1969 and began living with
the Fano family in 1970. In 1972, Fano
Shimasaki in the customary Samoan manner assigned the area of the vacated upper
mountainside site to Matalena and her family, which included Iosefo, Malia,
Maua, and Matalena’s sister and her husband.
By then, only remnants remained of the dwelling and plantation of
Faleula’s family on the upper mountainside site. Matalena and her family redeveloped the area
and have lived there ever since.
After Faleula and Charles
relocated to American Samoa in 1995, they initially moved onto, and still
reside, on the lower mountainside site.
She actually has a 55-year lease of land in this area, signed by the
presently incumbent sa`o, Fano Salilo
in 1995, but she professes no present intention of building a residence
there. Instead, Faleula made, and
continues to make, it known to Fano Salilo, and at least indirectly to Matalena
and her family, that she considered, and still considers, the upper
mountainside site to be the assigned Fano land of Matalena’s family, and she
wanted, and now wants, to live there.
Before long, serious trouble erupted in the relations
between Faleula and Charles, on one side, and Matalena and her family on the
other side. The incidents generally
described below began in 1995 and periodically continued at least up to the
issuance of the preliminary injunction in this action in 2001. The core issue was, and still is, Faleula’s
desire to reside on the upper mountainside site. It appears that the initial provocation of
the serious incidents that followed came when Faleula cut down some of
Matalena’s bananas. Matalena retaliated,
mostly through her family members as agents.
These incidents included physical
violence and threatened violence against both Faleula and Charles. The serious incidents of assaults occurred in
1996 to 1998. Charles, with his law
enforcement background, was then employed in the American Samoa Government’s
Department of Public Safety, but even though some incidents were reported, he
and Faleula obtained very little police assistance. Also included were episodes of undue and
frequent harassment and annoyance through profanity, name calling, and by throwing
rocks at, and trash onto, the premises occupied by Faleula and Charles. While Faleula and perhaps Charles were not
entirely innocent of further provocative action, clearly Matalena and her
family responded and initiated retaliatory actions of a far more serious and
unjustified nature.
Fano Salilo, as the sa`o, attempted to intercede and restore peace and harmony among
all, both family blood and nonblood members living within the family
structure. Fiapia also assisted in Fano
Salilo’s efforts. Unfortunately, Fano
Salilo does not appear to be a strong and forceful leader. Even though in October 1995 Fano Salilo
notified Matalena to move out of the upper mountainside site in Faleula’s
favor, he changed his mind and supported, and still supports, his predecessor’s
assignment of the site to Matalena in 1972.
Moreover, he apparently now holds Faleula principally responsible for
the disruption in family relationships, citing the good will existing before
her return here. In any event, his
efforts failed.
We hasten to point out that following the return of Faleula and
Charles to the Territory in 1995, and in addition to her peacemaker’s efforts,
Fiapia has neither played a negative role in the property dispute, nor has been
directly involved in any of the confrontational incidents of violence or
harassment.
Discussion
A. Right to Occupy and Use the Upper Mountainside Site
[1-4] A Samoan family’s sa`o controls the occupancy and use of
the family’s communal land. Seventh
Day Adventist Church v. Maneafaiga, 23 A.S.R.2d 150, 154 (Land & Titles Div. 1993); Lutu v. Taesaliali`i, 11 A.S.R.2d 80, 87-88 (Land & Titles Div. 1989). His relationship to the family’s communal
land is likened to a trustee for the benefit of the family’s members as a
whole. Lutu, 11 A.S.R.2d at 88; Talili v. Satele, 4 A.S.R.2d 23, 27 (Land
& Titles Div. 1987). His authority
extends to making customary assignments of the occupancy and use of portions
the family’s communal lands, usually to family members. Seventh Day Adventist Church, 23
A.S.R.2d at 154; Lutu, 11 A.S.R.2d at 88. His decisions on customary assignments of the
family’s communal lands are final, subject only to judicial review for
arbitrary and capricious actions. Pen v. Lavata`i, 25 A.S.R.2d 164, 168 (Land
& Titles Div. 1994); Lutu, 11 A.S.R.2d at 88. Ordinarily, so long as the customary assignee
of a portion of the family’s communal land provides tautua (“customary service”) to the sa`o, the assignment endures for the assignee’s lifetime. Afoa
v. Taaifili, 26
A.S.R.2d 47, 51 (Land & Titles Div. 1994) (quoting Seventh Day
Adventist Church, 23 A.S.R.2d at 155).
However, the sa`o also retains authority to reassign
the portion to another in the event of the assignee’s prolonged nonuse of the
premises. Lutu, 11 AS.R.2d at 88.
In this case, the assignment of the upper mountainside
site was clearly to Faleula’s mother, who is now deceased. Even if the assignment is construed to
include Faleula and other members of her family, the upper mountainside site
was unoccupied by anyone in the family for a significant period of time,
perhaps as long as seven years. Although
Faleula expressed to the sa`o on
several occasions her desire to again live on the site some day, no other
member of her family was using the site in 1972, and had not used it for some
time, and it was readily apparent at that juncture that Faleula had no concrete
plans to permanently return to American Samoa in the foreseeable future. The circumstances could even be construed as
a surrender of the assignment by Faleula and her family. See generally Talagu v. Te`o, 4 A.S.R. 122
(Land & Titles Div. 1974). In any
event, under these circumstances, Fano Shimasaki, the incumbent sa`o in
1972, acted well within his authority when he assigned the site to Matalena,
and perhaps her family as well. We therefore
conclude that Faleula does not have any right to occupy and use the upper
mountainside site, and that Matalena is the lawful occupant and user of that
site.
B. Permanent Injunctive Relief
[5] After a full and final trial
on the merits, the Court may issue a permanent injunction upon finding that a
basis for it is established and determining that a judgment for money damages
will provide an inadequate remedy for the wrong claimed. A.S.C.A. §§ 43.1301(f), (g) and 43.1302.
In light of the lengthy history of violence,
threatened violence, harassment, and annoyance by Matalena and her family
towards Faleula and Charles, we find that money damages are an inadequate
remedy in the situation at hand and conclude that permanent injunctions are the
most suitable legal means, under the circumstances, to guard against the
occurrence of further episodes of this nature between the parties. Matalena and her family need to be
permanently enjoined from any further actions of violence and harassment
against Faleula and Charles. Faleula
should be enjoined likewise from any such actions against Matalena and her
family to further promote peaceful relations between the parties.
Order
1. Based on the
proper customary assignment by the Fano family sa`o in 1972, Matalena, not Faleula is entitled to occupancy and
use of the upper mountainside site.
2. Until
further order of the Court, Matalena, Malia, and Maua, and their officers,
agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and family members, and those persons
in active concert or participation with them are permanently enjoined from
assaulting, threatening to assault, harassing, annoying, or otherwise
disturbing the peace of Faleula and Charles.
3. Until further order of the Court, Faleula, and her
officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and family members, and those
persons in active concert or participation with her, are permanently enjoined
from assaulting, threatening to assault, harassing, annoying, or otherwise
disturbing the peace of Matalena, Malia, and Maua.
4. The cause of
action against Fiapia is dismissed with prejudice
It is so ordered.
**********