Einat v Chuuk Land Commission [2018] FMCSC 7; 22 FSM R. 130j (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2018) (23 October 2018)

CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION
CSSC-CIVIL ACTION NO. 060-2017

EIKO EINAT,
Petitioner,

vs.

CHUUK STATE LAND COMMISSION, SENIOR
LAND COMMISSIONER CHESTER KUSTAF, in
his personal capacity, and KACHIE ROBERT,
Respondents.
_____________________________________________

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND MATTER TO LAND COMMISSION WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO VOID DETERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP

Camillo Noket
Chief Justice

Decided: October 23, 2018

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner: Johnny Meippen, Esq.
P.O. Box 705
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

For the Respondents: Sabino S. Asor, Esq.
Chuuk Attorney General
Office of the Chuuk Attorney General
P.O. Box 1050
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Constitutional Law - Chuuk - Due Process
The Chuuk Constitution mandates that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the essence of due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard. Einat v. Chuuk Land Comm’n, 22 FSM R. 130j, 130l (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2018).

Civil Procedure - Joinder, Misjoinder, and Severance; Constitutional Law - Chuuk - Due Process; Property - Registered Land
The titleholder is an indispensable party to any action to set aside, void, nullify, or alter the titleholder’s certificate of title because due process makes that person an indispensable party to the action. Courts generally hold court orders void when the real party of interest was not present and the matter concerned the removal of that (indispensable) party from a certificate of title. Einat v. Chuuk Land Comm’n, 22 FSM R. 130j, 130L (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2018).

Constitutional Law - Chuuk - Due Process; Judgments - Void; Property - Registered Land
Default judgments against a real party of interest will be voided for lack of due process when that party lacked a notice and hearing before being disposed of its claim to a property - even when the real party of interest lacked a certificate of title. Einat v. Chuuk Land Comm’n, 22 FSM R. 130j, 130L (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2018).

Civil Procedure - Motions; Constitutional Law - Chuuk - Due Process; Property - Registered Land
A stipulated motion, that proffers no proof of service on the real party of interest, but asks the court to void the real party in interest’s years-old, un-appealed determination of ownership and thus seeks to dispossess her of her property rights without notice or hearing, asks the court to issue an order in violation of the real party in interest’s due process rights. The court will deny any such motion because voiding a determination of ownership based on stipulation that fails to provide notice to the real party of interest violates the real party of interest’s due process rights under the Chuuk Constitution. Einat v. Chuuk Land Comm’n, 22 FSM R. 130j, 130m (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2018).

* * * *

COURT’S OPINION

CAMILLO NOKET, Chief Justice:

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 14, 2017 Plaintiff Eiko Einat filed a Complaint against the Chuuk State Land Commission, Senior Land Commissioner Chester Kustaf in his personal capacity, and Kachie Robert - alleging that the Determination of Ownership issued by the Land Commission to Kachie Robert over Nepitiw Part was invalid as a result of violating Plaintiff’s Due Process Rights. The Land Commission and Senior Land Commissioner responded on July 13, 2017. Kachie Robert never responded. On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendant Land Commission submitted a stipulated motion with a request for this Court to remand this matter to the Land Commission with instructions to void Kachie Robert’s Determination of Ownership and hold further hearings as to the determination of ownership. Plaintiff submitted neither any evidence of service to Defendant Kachie Robert nor evidence of her consent to this stipulation.

II. ISSUES

1. 1. Whether voiding a determination of ownership based on stipulation that fails to provide notice to the real party of interest (as the holder of such determination) violates that real party of interest’s due process rights under the Chuuk State Constitution.
   

III. LAW

A. Due Process Requirements Concerning Land Disputes

The Chuuk State Constitution mandates that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Chk. Const. art. III, § 2. The essence of due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard. Dereas v. Eas, [2004] FMCSC 5; 12 FSM Intrm. 629, 633 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2004) (citing Kama v. Chuuk, [2002] FMCSC 5; 10 FSM Intrm. 593, 598 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2002)).

This Court previously held that the titleholder is an indispensable party to any action to set aside, void, nullify, or alter the titleholder’s certificate of title . . . since due ss requires thas that that person is an indispensable party to the action. Dereas v. Eas, 14 FSM R. 446, 455 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2006). Courts have generally held court orders void where partinterest was not not presepresent and the matter concerned the removal of a that (indispensable) party from a certificate of title. Id.; see also Ruben v. Hartman, 15 FSM R. 100, 110 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2007).

Further, this Court has previously voided default judgments against a real party of interest for lack of due process, where that party lacked a notice and hearing prior to being disposed of its claim to a property - even when this real party of interest lacked a certificate of title. See generally Pastor v. Ngusun, 11 FSM R. 281, 286 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2002) (Voided judgment where Plaintiff failed to include buyer of a property in Complaint).

IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff’s Stipulation

It is ironic that a Plaintiff who alleges a due process violation within a lower tribunal submits a stipulated motion before this Court; that if granted, would violate the due process rights of one of the Defendants.

An examination of the filed stipulation lacks the signature of Kachie Robert or that of her attorney. As this stipulation lacks even a reference as to the consent of all the parties, especially the real party of interest; it is not a stipulation which this Court may merely grant without further review. This Court may only treat the stipulation as a jointly submitted motion by Plaintiff and one of the Defendants.

Although Kachie Robert has failed to respond to the Complaint; in absence of a served and unanswered motion for default judgment, this Court may not presume that Kachie Robert acquiesced to the pleadings within Plaintiff’s Complaint.
The stipulated motion proffers no proof of service to the real party of interest, Kachie Robert. This stipulated motion requests this Court to void Kachie Robert’s Determination of Ownership - which was issued years ago. Without a proof of service to Kachie Robert, this Court may only conclude that Robert lacked notice and an opportunity to respond to a motion that seeks to dispossess Robert of her property rights as vested by her un-appealed Determination of Ownership. Plaintiff’s motion to dispossess Defendant Robert of her property rights without notice or hearing in essence, flatly requests this Court to issue an order in violation of Robert’s Due Process Rights.

V. CONCLUSION

This Court now finds that voiding a determination of ownership based on stipulation that fails to provide notice to the real party of interest (as the holder of such determination) violates that real party of interest’s due process rights under the Chuuk State Constitution.

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

* * * *