Ioapo v Fa'alevao [2014] ASHC 20; MT 02-02 (11 March 2014)

SLIP OPINIONS

OF THE

LAND AND TITLES DIVISION

OF THE

HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

(2014)

TAUA'I IOAPO JR., Claimant,

v.

AVIATA FANO FA'ALEVAO, Counter-claimant.

_______________________________________________________

[In re Matai Title "PAPALAUENA" of the village of Olosega]

High Court of American Samoa
Land and Titles Division

MT No. 02-02

March 11, 2014

[1] The decision whether to grant a motion for reconsideration or new trial is left to the broad discretion of the trial court.

[2] A motion for reconsideration or new trial should be based on a manifest mistake of fact or error of law, and the court should find substantial reasons before setting aside a judgment.

[3] A party moving for new trial must do more than reiterate the trial court's reasons for a decision and then make a blind assertion that the court is incorrect.

[4] T.C.R.C.P. 7(b)(1) requires that an application to the court for any order shall be by motion, which shall state the grounds with particularity. The particularity requirement is especially important for a motion for new trial, one of whose purposes is to avoid unnecessary appeals by alerting the trial court to possible errors or omissions in its opinion.

[5] The Court did not make a manifest mistake of fact in determining that the family had held a proper family meeting to determine a matai successor when it found that there were two distinct descent groups within the family and that all clans were represented at the meeting.

[6] A party cannot file partial motions and later argue supplement issues at oral argument as the Court has no jurisdiction to hear extrinsic issues.

[7] A court should not automatically or casually grant a stay of judgment pending appeal; instead, the court's discretion to grant a stay should be exercised only if cause is shown.

[8] A judgment will be stayed when it appears to the trial or appellate court that there is a strong chance the judgment will be vacated on appeal; that compliance with the judgment during the pendency of the appeal would so change the status quo as to amount to an effective denial of the right to appeal, or would otherwise work extraordinary hardship on the appellant; that little or no hardship would be imposed on adverse parties by appellant's noncompliance; or that some combination of these conditions overcomes the presumption in favor of allowing each party the present enjoyment of what has been held to be his lawful rights.