1 MILR (Rev.) 81

IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

S.Ct. CIVIL NO. 86-03
(High Ct. Civil No. 1985-008)

BARO TOBELLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

-v-

LIKINIBOD DAVID,
Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT

APRIL 6, 1987

BURNETT, C.J.
TENNEKONE, A.J., and KONDO, A.J. (sitting by designation)

SUMMARY:

Prior to her death, the alap of Morjinkot land executed a kalimur to transfer the alap rights, by kolotlot, to a younger bwij. The Court held the alap had no authority to unilaterally transfer the inheritance right and declared the transfer not valid.

DIGEST:

1. LAND RIGHTS – Morjinkot: Rights in Morjinkot land, a gift from an Iroij as reward for bravery in battle, remain in the bwij and are inherited in the maternal line.

2. LAND RIGHTS – Alap – Powers and Obligations: An alap has no authority to unilaterally and without notice cut off the inheritance rights of her bwij.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY BURNETT, C.J.

This appeal is taken from a judgment holding Appellee, Likinbod David, to be the alap of Jeltoknen Weto, Longar Island, Arno Atoll. The case is unusual in the sense that there is no dispute of the facts, so decision must turn on application of Marshallese customary law to those facts.

[1] Toklan was alap of this land at the time she died. Her rights, and the rights of her bwij, had their source in Morjinkot, a gift from an iroij as reward for bravery in battle. Rights in Morjinkot land remain in the bwij and are inherited in the maternal line.

Prior to her death, Toklan executed a kalimur to change the rights from bwij to kolotlot, transferring the alap rights to a younger bwij, here represented by the Appellant. No notice was given to her bwij, and no one representing the bwij was consulted.

Appellee is a member of Toklan's bwij, and in the absence of the action taken by her, would have the unquestioned right to recognition as alap. She contends that an alap has no authority, unilaterally and without notice, to cut off the rights of her bwij.

Appellant, while conceding that that is true of Imon Bwij land, insists that the requirement of notice and consultation has no application in the case of Imon Kolotlot. The simple answer is that, until Toklan attempted by her kalimur, to make a change, it was clearly bwij land. Thus Appellant contends for an exception to customary bwij inheritance, based solely on Toklan's decision to change the character of the holding.

[2] Both the Traditional Rights Court and the Trial Court1 held that Toklan had no authority to unilaterally cut off the inheritance rights of her bwij. That holding is so clearly correct as to require no citation of authority to sustain it. (Note that not even an iroij has the power to cut off vested customary rights without good cause).

We Affirm.

_________

1 The Trial Court, in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, used the terms "Imon Kolotlot" and "Imon Aje" as apparently alternative terms. They are not; Imon Aje refers to a gift from an Iroij for services.