Pago Pago Yacht Club, Inc., v American Samoa Government [2012] ASHC 19; AP 04-12 (1 June 2012)

OPINIONS

OF THE

APPELLATE DIVISION

OF THE

HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

(2011-2012)

PAGO PAGO YACHT CLUB, INC.,
Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT,
Appellee

___________________________________

High Court of American Samoa
Appellate Division

AP. No. 04-12

June 1, 2012

[1] The Trial Division’s determination as to whether PPYC’s “Motion for Reconsideration” is particularized enough to survive the threshold particularity requirement of T.C.R.C.P. 7(b)(1) is a pure question of law that the Appellate Division reviews de novo.

[2] In the judicial appeals context, de novo review acknowledges an appellate court owes no formal adherence or deference to the reasoning or conclusions of law a lower court proffers; indeed, de novo review allows the appellate court to entertain and determine an issue of law anew.

[3] “Motion for Reconsideration” is a misnomer; the Appellate Division will treat a “Motion for Reconsideration” as a T.C.R.C.P. 59 motion for new trial or amended judgment. A.S.C.A. § 43.0802(a).

[4] Unlike most federal courts, this Territory makes T.C.R.C.P. 7(b)(1)’s particularity requirement a jurisdictional predicate to appellate review, to wit, if no timely motion for reconsideration or new trial conforming to the particularity requirement of Rule 7(b)(1) is filed within the statutory ten-day deadline with the lower court, then the Appellate Division has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in such a case–regardless of any argument, equitable or otherwise to the contrary. Quite simply, the Appellate Division lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal if the appellant filed an unparticularized or untimely motion for new trial at the trial level. A.S.C.A. § 43.0802(a).

[5] The particularity requirement of T.C.R.C.P. 7(b)(1) means “reasonable specification.’” As the phrase “reasonable specification” implies, courts consider this particularity requirement rather flexibly. However, motions for new trial must, at the very least, state the grounds for new trial or amendment of judgment; failure to do so will result in violation of Rule 7(b)(1). Essentially, a particularized motion for new trial should reasonably specify an appellant’s grounds for new trial, amendment of the lower court’s judgment, and/or appeal.