Koko v Kneubuhl [2014] ASHC 7; AP 11-2009 (17 October 2014)

SLIP OPINIONS

OF THE

APPELLATE DIVISION

OF THE

HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

(2014)

PULETU D. KOKO, On Behalf Of Himself And The PULETU FAMILY, TALAMATAVAO MORU MANE TUIAGAMOA, and Intervenors VAILU‟U MANAIMA LANG, On Behalf Of Himself And The VAILUU FAMILY,
Appellants,

v.

DOUGLAS CRANE KNEUBUHL a.k.a. MIKE KNEUBUHL, IULI A. GODINET, MOLIO‟O FRANK GODINET, KISHON PRITCHARD LUA, FA‟ATAMALI‟I PRITCHARD, On Behalf Of Herself And As Administrator Of The ESTATE OF FUIAVAILI‟ILI WILLIAM PRITCHARD, ELIONAI PRITCHARD, AZIZA PRITCHARD, BENIAH PRITCHARD, EL SHADDAI PRITCHARD, SHILOH PRITCHARD, and SHECHINA PRITCHARD,
Appellees.

High Court of American Samoa
Appellate Division

AP No. 11-09

October 17, 2014

[1] Questions of law are reviewed de novo by the appellate division.

[2] The appellate division reviews findings of fact by the trial court under the clearly erroneous standard.

[3] A finding of fact is erroneous when the entire record produces the definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a mistake, according particular weight to the trial judge‘s assessment of conflicting and ambiguous facts.

[4] A trial court judge may use all of his senses in evaluating a witness‘s testimony and is free to believe, or disbelieve, the testimony.

[5] Where each party has presented evidence to the trial court that supports his or her claim to land ownership, the trial division‘s findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.

[6] The test for clear error is whether there is substantial evidence on the record to support the lower court‘s findings – not whether a dissatisfied litigant himself presented substantial evidence.

[7] The appellate division declined to engage in further analysis of Appellants‘ assertions when the trial court had clearly assessed the conflicting and ambiguous facts that the parts had presented in a 56-page opinion.

[8] It has been long established that in American Samoa, co-owners of non-communal land holding an undivided interest are tenants in common.

[9] A tenant in common is equally entitled to the use and possession of the common property and has an interest in the possession of every part of the property.

[10] It was not reversible error for the trial court to conclude Appellees could legally act on their own behalf and on behalf of one another regarding certain land parcels that they held as tenants in common.

[11] No lease exists when the individuals who signed the lease documents did not have authority to do so.