State of Truk v Aten [1988] TTLawRp 1; 8 TTR 631 (22 September 1988)

8 TTR 631

STATE OF TRUK, ex rel. YOSIUO SWAIN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

ERHART ATEN, GOVERNOR OF TRUK STATE, et al., Defendants-Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 432

Appellate Division of the High Court

Truk Territory Division

September 22, 1988

Appeal following remand of suit by public employees alleging "privatization program" of former governor of the State of Truk violated various laws. The Appellate Division of the High Court, Tevrizian, Associate Justice, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for findings consistent with its opinion.

1. Appeal and Error--Findings and Conclusions-Clearly Erroneous

A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (6 TTC § 355 (2)).

2. Appeal and Error-Scope of Review-Facts

Appellate court does not reweigh facts de novo.

3. Appeal and Review-Evidence-Weight

If the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.

4. Appeal and Review-Evidence-Weight

Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.

5. Appeal and Error-Findings and Conclusions-Supporting Evidence

Where private contractors and government officials admitted that they conspired in a kickback scheme related to a government contract but a permissible view of credible evidence supported trial court's finding that no fraud or collusion affected the contract, inasmuch as no kickbacks were actually paid and no prices were padded, trial court's finding was not clearly erroneous.

6. Appeal and Error-Findings-Supporting Evidence

Where plausible evidence relied upon by the trial court supported its findings respondents entered into and completed a government contract in good faith, the findings were not clearly erroneous.

7. Appeal and Error-Remand

Where Appellate Division previously found that government contracts violated several laws and were invalid and stated in its remand order that respondents had to overcome a presumption that they were aware of the effect of these laws to recover on quantum meruit for work performed on the contracts, trial court's conclusion as a matter of law that respondents overcame the presumption of knowledge of the State of Truk's contracting requirements because they knew at the time they entered the agreements by negotiation that such a procedure was legal, did not address the Appellate Division's concern for violation of other laws or its specific instructions.

8. Appeal and Error-Burden of Proof