5ASR3d237

Series: 5ASR3d | Year: () | 5ASR3d237
Print This

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.