Godinet v Tuliloa [2013] ASHC 24; MT 02-12 (7 May 2013)

SLIP OPINIONS

OF THE

LAND AND TITLES DIVISION

OF THE

HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

(2013)

IULI ALEXANDER GODINET,
Claimant,

v.

POLOA M. L. TULILOA,
Objector.

[In re Matai Title “FAIIVAE” of the Village of Leone]

High Court of American Samoa
Land & Titles Division

MT No. 02-12

May 7, 2013

[1] A variant of the Sotoa rule, which adopts as the heredity yardstick the closest relationship to the parties' nearest common ancestor, is only viable under certain factual scenarios where all of the candidates are closely related.

[2] The remoteness of ancestry evident with party pedigree does not lend itself to tenable assessment under the traditional rule.

[3] When measuring blood right, the court will rely on ascertainable evidence rather than myth and family lore.

Before KRUSE, Chief Justice; LOGOAI, Chief Associate Judge; MAMEA, Associate Judge; and MUASAU, Associate Judge.

Counsel: For Claimant, Fiti A. Sunia
For Objector, Charles V. Ala‘ilima

OPINION

Following a series of Faiivae family meetings convened at Pouono (family's guesthouse), claimant Iuli Alexander Godinet ("Iuli") offered the matai title Faiivae, of Leone, for registration with the Territorial Registrar ("Registrar") pursuant to A.S.C.A. § 1.0405. Counter-claimant Poloa M.L. Tuliloa ("Poloa") timely objected by filing his own succession claim to the title in accordance with A.S.C.A. § 1.0407. In accordance with the requirements of A.S.C.A. § 43.0302, the Registrar referred the parties to the Secretary of Samoan Affairs ("Secretary") for mandated conciliation meetings.

The statutory meetings were duly convened; however, the parties were not able to reach any sort of resolution before the Secretary. In accordance with § 43.0302(a), the Secretary issued a Certificate of Irreconcilable Dispute, dated January 25, 2012, [**2**] thereby referring the matter as a "disputed claim," A.S.C.A. § 1.0409, for judicial determination. In due course, the Registrar transmitted his file to the Clerk of Court, in accordance with TCRLT 3, thereby initiating the proceedings now before us.

Discussion

I. Jurisdiction

The Secretary having duly certified an irreconcilable dispute, we note subject matter jurisdiction. A.S.C.A. § 43.0302; see Fagaima v. American Samoa Gov't., AP No. 01-10, Slip op. (App. Div. Nov. 15, 2012) and Koko v. Kneubuhl, AP No. 11-09, Slip op. (App. Div. Nov. 30, 2011).

II. A.S.C.A. § 1.409(c)

On the evidence presented, we make the below findings with regard to the four statutory criteria under A.S.C.A. § 1.409(c):

A. Best Hereditary Right

Iuli traces his ancestry, and hence claim of hereditary entitlement, to Faiivae Sooto. According to Iuli, his ancestor Sooto was the very first Faiivae titleholder.^[1]

Poloa bases his hereditary claim as a descendant of Faiivae Niulaititi. Poloa's version of family history maintains that Sooto was not the first, but the second title holder; and, that his ancestor Niulaititi, an issue of the original holder that preceded Sooto, was the third Faiivae. [**3**]

Even with the variation in party versions, each candidates' ancestral Faiivae would appear to have been from an age of bygone mythical times. As given on the evidence, family history as to the Faiivae title's origins was explained in allegorical reference: the title emanated with/from a being who apparently wavered between the physical and spirit worlds. Consequently, our factfinding task is, under the circumstances, made rather interesting, to say the least.

With the pedigrees supplied, we consider each candidate's hereditary right from literal reference. Until 1984, the issue of best hereditary right was decided on the basis of closest relationship to any former titleholder. This manner of measure was a convenient rule to apply. It promoted some measure of certainty, and it also (conveniently) avoided having to deal with the vicissitudes of oral history, traditions, and gafa (genealogies) handed down through the ages by word of mouth.

The rule was not without criticism. In effect, it was clearly inequitable because of its flagrant bias in favor of the candidate who is fortunate enough to have had a parent, or other close ancestor, who was a past titleholder. Moreover, the rule invariably worked capriciously in favor of the progeny of any winning candidate who himself might have been quite remotely entitled under the rule.2 Thus, this Court in In re Matai Title [**4**] Sotoa, ^[2] A.S.R.2d 15 (Land & Titles Div. 1984) suddenly announced a new rule for assessing hereditary right by focusing the inquiry not on a candidate's closest relationship to a past titleholder but to the original titleholder. This new measure became known as the Sotoa rule, which was thought to be less arbitrary as "[e]very new title holder does not start a new line of heredity." Id.^[3]

[1] In another scenario where the original titleholder's bloodline had died out, two unrelated descent groups have given rise, over the ages, to the establishment of two separate and unrelated family factions, with separate (split title) matai. In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 17 A.S.R.2d 75, (Land & Titles Div. 1990); aff'd Mulitauaopele v. Mulitauaopele, 25 A.S,R.2d 43 (App. Div. 1993).

Be that as it may, the Sotoa rule was soon found to be laden with its own peculiar baggage of difficulties: many a matai case, like the matter here before us, would also be immersed in bitter disagreement as to the identity of the founding titleholder, See In re Matai Title Fano, 4 A.S.R.2d 148, 149 (Land & Titles Div. 1987). Moreover, when dealing with gafa going back through the generations, the opportunity for ready mischief--and a better score on the heredity scale--was available (and availed) by presenting pedigree sans a few generational steps in the genealogical ladder. Consequently, a variant of the Sotoa rule [**5**] soon came into use, adopting as the heredity yardstick the closest relationship to the parties' nearest common ancestor. Id. But then again, this variation of the Sotoa rule was only viable under certain factual scenarios where all of the candidates are closely related.

[2]-[3] The evidence here highlights the extent to which this statutory criterion has been fraught with difficulty in the Court's attempts to measure blood right, to the Samoan institution of matai, by resorting to what are essentially imported notions of primogeniture.^[4] In the very matter before us, the genealogies presented can neither plausibly identify the original titleholder nor a common ancestor unconnected to myth and family lore. Moreover, the remoteness of ancestry evident with party pedigree presented here, simply does not lend itself to tenable assessment under the traditional rule.

Therefore, in terms of Faiivae family history as corroborated by previous Faiivae family disputes before this Court,^[5] all that can be said, with any measure of assurance, is that the descendants of Faiivae Sooto have, long before the establishment of the American Samoa Government, dominated the title over many generations. At the same time, case history from 1910, 1960 and 1972 also show that Niulaititi's descendants have [**6**] been persistent in their efforts to assert for the record their entitlement as Faiivae heirs.^[6]

On the evidence before us, therefore, all that the Court can ascertain, with any measure of confidence, and we so find, is that candidates are heirs (suli) to the matai title Faiivae. On the extent of their respective proofs and from review of past case history, we rank the parties as equally entitled under the heading of best hereditary right.

B. Clan^[7] Preference

[**7**] The weight of the evidence presented suggests that the Faiivae family has in recent times customarily organized itself along four distinct descent lines known as: Saitosua, Fatumala, Niulaititi, and Tuitagivale. We accordingly find that the family has four clans.

The evidence further shows that the assembled family had painstakingly met repeatedly, under the able direction of Chief Taeleifi, in its attempts to select a matai. At the outset, each clan had its own candidate presented for consideration before the assembled family. Iuli was nominated by the Fatumala clan while Poloa was the favored son of the Niulaititi clan. Over the course of extended family debate, three of the clans agreed on Iuli. Saitosua and Tuitagivales' candidates were subsequently withdrawn, with these clans throwing in their support for Iuli. Poloa remained steadfast and unyielding in his bid for the family's title. We find that Iuli has garnered majority clan support.

C. Forcefulness, Character, Personality and Knowledge of Samoan Customs

Under this heading, we find in favor of Iuli. In terms of knowledge of Samoan customs, Poloa himself conceded on the stand that Iuli was better at ease in this regard. In terms of forcefulness, we find both to be equal in this regard. We note that each has risen from modest circumstances, showing personal [**8**] initiative, drive, and gumption; they both have enjoyed success in their respective career choices. With regard to character and personality, we find for Iuli; he is personable and engaging in nature, whereas Poloa is self centered and more inward looking as evident with family meetings. Moreover, we find that Iuli's more outgoing disposition is consistent with his more extensive record of community service; it is a trait which bespeaks his cooperative nature. Finally, in terms of character, we the evidence favors Iuli. All things being equal, we note that Poloa has a record with this Court, albeit made during his youth, which weighs against him in any sort of comparative character assessment. We conclude in favor of Iuli.

D. Value to Family, Village, and Country

The matai