Hartman v Chuuk [1998] FMCSC 20; 8 FSM Intrm. 580 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998) (20 August 1998)

CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT
TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as Hartman v Chuuk, [1998] FMCSC 20; 8 FSM Intrm. 580 (CHk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998)

CHONSY T. HARTMAN,
Plaintiff,

vs.

CHUUK STATE GOVERNMENT,
Defendant.

CSSC CIVIL ACTION #64-98

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Keske S. Marar
Associate Justice

Hearing: August 17, 1998
Decided: August 20, 1998

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiffs:
Manny Otoko, trial counselor
P.O. Box 903
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

For the Defendants:
Francis Sain, trial counselor
Office of the Chuuk Attorney General
P.O. Box 189
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Judgments - Default Judgments
No judgment by default shall be entered against the State of Chuuk or an officer or agency thereof in the Chuuk State Supreme Court unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court. Hartman v. Chuuk, [1998] FMCSC 20; 8 FSM Intrm. 580, 581 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

Judgments - Default Judgments
A plaintiff's uncontroverted testimony coupled with the defendant's failure to offer testimony or evidence of any fact, may leave a court with no alternative but to grant the plaintiff's petition for a judgment. Hartman v. Chuuk, [1998] FMCSC 20; 8 FSM Intrm. 580, 581 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

Civil Procedure - Injunctions
A court may not grant a plaintiff's request for injunctive or other equitable relief when there has been no showing of irreparable harm or that there is no adequate remedy at law and when the court has taken judicial knowledge of the use to which the government has put the land and the public detriment that would result from an injunction prohibiting such use. Hartman v. Chuuk, [1998] FMCSC 20; 8 FSM Intrm. 580, 581 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

KESKE S. MARAR, Associate Justice:

This case comes before the court after notice and hearing on Plaintiff"s Motion for Default Judgment. The Plaintiff was represented by Manny J. Otoko, Trial Counselor and the Defendant was represented by Francis Sain, Office of the Chuuk State Attorney General.

Counsel for the State raised the objection that a default judgment could not be entered against the State under the provisions of Rule 55(e), CSSC Rules Of Civil Procedure. Rule 55(e) provides as follows: "(e) Judgment Against the State of Chuuk. No judgment by default shall be entered against the State of Chuuk or an officer or agency thereof unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court."

A hearing was held in this case on August 17, 1998, for the express purpose of complying with Rule 55(e) and to give both parties the opportunity to present testimony or other evidence to establish or refute the claims or right to relief in issue. Notice of the hearing was duly given to all parties.

The Plaintiff appeared in her own proper person and testified in support of the allegations contained in her complaint. The State offered no testimony or other evidence in opposition to Plaintiff's claim.

The Plaintiff testified that she is the designated legal representative of her deceased father who was the owner of the property in question by virtue of his having purchased the same from one Nimuk in 1959. The Plaintiff testified further that on or about the year 1961, the then government authority removed her father from his possession of the land and that the land has been occupied by government authority since that time.

This uncontroverted testimony coupled with the fact that the Defendant failed to offer testimony or evidence of any fact, leaves the Court with no alternative but to grant the Plaintiff's Petition for a Judgment declaring that she is the true and lawful owner of that parcel of land known as "Unupuku" located on Moen Island, Chuuk State.

The Court is reluctant to grant Plaintiff's request for injunctive or other equitable relief in that there has been no showing of irreparable harm or that there is no adequate remedy at law. Also, the Court takes judicial knowledge of the use to which the government has put the land and the public detriment resulting from an injunction prohibiting such use.

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment on the issue of ownership referred to above but is denied any equitable relief. It is so ordered.