Young v Faitama'i [2012] ASHC 39; LT 20-12 (14 September 2012)

OPINIONS

OF THE

LAND AND TITLES DIVISION

OF THE

HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

(2012

ARTHUR YOUNG, MAUALUAGA MATA`U AND LEVANU SIAKI MATA`U, for themselves and on behalf of the Heirs of Tato Tato,
Plaintiff,

v.

LEOMITI FAITAMA`I, TOLO and PINE LAUOLETOLO and DOES I through 10,
Defendant.

High Court of American Samoa
Land and Titles Division

LT No. 20-12

September 14, 2012

[1] The Court will not interfere with a matai’s administration of communal land unless his actions were arbitrary and capricious.

[2] The prolonged nonuse or abandonment of family property by an assignee, is a matter well within the matai's authority to manage and conserve family assets.

[3] A mere claim to individually-owned title to a property that is largely grounded on vague recollections of hearsay accounts and some evidence of intermittent occupation of the property are not sufficient to substantiate a claim of individualized title to the property.

Before KRUSE, Chief Justice; and FA`AMAUSILI, Associate Judge.

Counsel: For Plaintiffs, Matailupevao Leupolu Jr.,

For Defendants, M. Talaimalo Uiagalelei

OPRDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Background

Plaintiffs Arthur Young, Maualuga Mata`u and Levanu Siaki Mata`u (together "Plaintiffs") are descendants of the late Tato Tato ("Tato"), through whom they claim individualized-ownership of portions of land in Pava`ia`i known as "Leafi" and "Soliga" (hereinafter "Land"). Defendant Leomiti Faitama`i ("Leomiti"), the current sa`o (senior matai) of the Leomiti family of Pava`ia`i, recently allowed Defendants Tolo and Pine Lauoletolo to plant crops and cultivate on the Land.

On August 8, 2012, Plaintiffs brought an action against Defendants seeking, among other things, injunctive relief (a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction) against Defendants' activities on the Land. Plaintiffs' motion came on [**2**] for hearing September 5, 2012. At the hearing, we took evidence and subsequently directed written closing arguments from the parties. Both parties have submitted closing arguments, and having taken the matter under advisement, we hereby deny Plaintiffs' motion for provisional relief for reasons given infra.

Discussion

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish by preponderance of the evidence (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and that (2) great or irreparable harm will result to the plaintiff before a full trial on the merits. A.S.C.A. § 43.1301(j); Samoa Aviation, Inc. v. Bendall