Jabwe v Henos [1975] TTLawRp 5; 7 TTR 227 (27 March 1975)

7 TTR 227

JABWE, Successor to KAIKO,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HENOS,
Defendant-Appellant

Civil Appeal No. 84
Appellate Division of the High Court
Marshall Islands District

March 27, 1975

Appeal disputing determination of dri jerbal interests. The Appellate Division of the High Court, Hefner, Associate Justice, held that the evidence supported the trial court's decision.

1. Appeal and Error—Generally

On appeal, the Appellate Division of the High Court will make every reasonable presumption in favor of correctness of the lower court's decision and the burden is on the appellant to affirmatively show error; and the court's function is to determine whether there is any evidence supporting the judgment.

2. Marshalls Land Law—"Dri Jerbal"—Transfer of Rights

Will transferring one's dri jerbal rights to one's children does not have to be approved by the alab.
Counsel for Appellant: JOHN HEINE
Counsel for Appellee: MENNA BUNITAK

HEFNER, Associate Justice

This matter was previously remanded for trial by the Appellate Division in Civil Appeal No. 70. Thereafter a Judgment (on retrial) was entered and the defendant appeals from the latter judgment.

The appellant has failed to file a written argument but this court determines that the file and records in this matter are such that it shall proceed to determine this matter without further written or oral arguments by either party.

The notice of appeal is quite lengthy and exceeds the concise statement specified in Rule 21, Rules of Civil Procedure. In fact, the notice of appeal appears to be appellant's written argument. To present an orderly appeal, the notice of appeal should conform with Rule 21 and at the time the record is certified arguments should then be prepared pursuant to Rule 32h (2), Rules of Criminal Procedure (made applicable to the Rules of Civil Procedure).

In order to fully assess appellant's position on appeal, this Court will fully consider the points raised in the notice of appeal.

The appellant's main dispute with the trial court's decision is unique in that he does not argue so much for his personal benefit but for others whom he feels should be the dri jerbal of the wato in question. The trial court found that the appellant is the alab and the appellee does not dispute this.

Since appellant's rights as alab are now secure, it is difficult to determine how his rights are prejudiced by the finding that plaintiff (as representative of all the children) holds the dri jerbal rights. In re Estate of Wisly, 5 TTR 81. This court recognizes the need for cooperation and loyalty in the Marshallese land tenure system. Lalik v. Lazarus S., 1 TTR 143, 145. However, appellant simply argues that someone else's rights are cut off and this is contrary to Marshallese custom.

The specific finding appellant disputes is that Kaiko (predecessor to plaintiff Jabwe) passed his dri jerbal interests by will to his natural children and to the children of Kaiko's older brother, Lomenwa.

[1] On appeal, the Appellate Division shall make every reasonable presumption in favor of correctness of the decision of the lower court and the burden is on the appellant to affirmatively show error. In re Estate of Wisly, 5 TTR 81.

As stated in Civil Appeal No. 70, the appellate function is to determine whether there is any evidence supporting the judgment. Henos v. Kaiko, 5 TTR 352.

A review of the record shows testimony to support the finding that the dri jerbal interest in the land came to Kaiko as "imon aje", which is a gift for services performed and that Kaiko transferred his dri jerbal rights to the children.

[2] The will was approved by the Leroij lablab and Iroij Erik. The approval of the alab is not required. Limine v. Lainej, 1 TTR 231, Lalik v. Elsen, 1 TTR 134.

The judgment is affirmed.