OPINIONS

OF THE

LAND AND TITLES DIVISION

OF THE

HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

(2012

ARTHUR YOUNG, MAUALUAGA MATA`U AND LEVANU SIAKI MATA`U, for themselves and on behalf of the Heirs of Tato Tato, 
Plaintiff,

v.

LEOMITI FAITAMA`I, TOLO and PINE LAUOLETOLO and DOES I through 10, 
Defendant.

High Court of American Samoa
Land and Titles Division

LT No. 20-12

September 14, 2012

[1] The Court will not interfere with a matai’s administration of communal land unless his actions were arbitrary and capricious.

[2] The prolonged nonuse or abandonment of family property by an assignee, is a matter well within the matai's authority to manage and conserve family assets. 

[3] A mere claim to individually-owned title to a property that is largely grounded on vague recollections of hearsay accounts and some evidence of intermittent occupation of the property are not sufficient to substantiate a claim of individualized title to the property.

Before KRUSE, Chief Justice; and FA`AMAUSILI, Associate Judge.

Counsel: For Plaintiffs, Matailupevao Leupolu Jr.,
For Defendants, M. Talaimalo Uiagalelei

OPRDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Background

Plaintiffs Arthur Young, Maualuga Mata`u and Levanu Siaki Mata`u (together "Plaintiffs") are descendants of the late Tato Tato ("Tato"), through whom they claim individualized-ownership of portions of land in Pava`ia`i known as "Leafi" and "Soliga" (hereinafter "Land"). Defendant Leomiti Faitama`i ("Leomiti"), the current sa`o (senior matai) of the Leomiti family of Pava`ia`i, recently allowed Defendants Tolo and Pine Lauoletolo to plant crops and cultivate on the Land.

On August 8, 2012, Plaintiffs brought an action against Defendants seeking, among other things, injunctive relief (a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction) against Defendants' activities on the Land. Plaintiffs' motion came on [**2**] for hearing September 5, 2012. At the hearing, we took evidence and subsequently directed written closing arguments from the parties. Both parties have submitted closing arguments, and having taken the matter under advisement, we hereby deny Plaintiffs' motion for provisional relief for reasons given infra.

Discussion

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish by preponderance of the evidence (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and that (2) great or irreparable harm will result to the plaintiff before a full trial on the merits. A.S.C.A. § 43.1301(j); Samoa Aviation, Inc. v. Bendall, 28 A.S.R.2d 101, 103 (Trial Div. 1995). 

Plaintiffs contend that their forbear, Tato, originally cleared and cultivated the Land, and that Tato's descendants have been occupying the Land for over 100 years. However, the proofs that Plaintiffs adduced were, at best, minimal. First, witness Young's account of his family side's history and connection with the Land was mostly vague. Young has neither lived on the land nor within the Village and his understanding about his ancestor Tato was rather sketchy. Second, Plaintiffs' evidence in support of their claim to continuing occupation leaves much to be desired. Only one of Tato's descendants is to be found on the Land today; whereas the majority have moved off-island and elsewhere.

In contrast, Defendants' evidence more convincingly shows [**3**] that the Land has largely been left vacant, unattended, and overgrown for a number of years. Leomiti, who claims that the Land is communal property of the Leomiti family, took it upon himself as sa`o to clean up and recultivate the Land left abandoned by Plaintiffs. Leomiti testified that he so acted in response to a warning given to him by the Village Pulenu`u (the Village Mayor) about an impending village inspection by District officials. The current Pulenu'u, Toluao Seutatia, testified and confirmed that he had contacted Leomiti to clean the Land, which had become littered with trash and overgrown weeds due to Plaintiffs' apparent abandonment. Accordingly, Leomiti employed individuals to rid the land of trash and instructed the Lauoletolos to plant crops and maintain the Land. According to Leomiti, (i) the Land is Leomiti communal land; (ii) Tato and his heirs are blood relatives of the Leomiti family; and (iii) the land was assigned to Tato by the then Leomiti family matai. 

We are inclined to believe Defendants' version of family history regarding Tato's entry and presence upon the Land; that is, as a Leomiti family member. Leomiti testified that Tato, who was originally from Manu`a, was brought on the Land by a former titleholder Leomiti; the two were half brothers. That Plaintiffs are thus family members is not only acknowledged by Arthur Young, but Leomiti also testified that individuals from Plaintiffs' side of the family have and continue to participate in Leomiti family fa`alavelave (customary family affairs). We find that the evidence strongly suggests the Land is Leomiti communal land, and [**4**] hence, Plaintiffs' connection to the Land.

[1-3] As such, this Court will not interfere with Leomiti's administration of Leomiti communal land unless his actions were arbitrary and capricious. Anoa`i v. Lai, 6 A.S.R.3d 307 (Land & Titles Div. 2002)(Communal land is under the jurisdiction of the matai); Pen v. Lavata`i, 25 A.S.R.2d 164, 168-69 (Land & Titles Div. 1994)(opining that the court may enjoin a matai's actions that are arbitrary and capricious). Leomiti's actions can hardly be called arbitrary or capricious; the prolonged nonuse or abandonment of family property by an assignee, is a matter well within the matai's authority to manage and conserve family assets. See e.g. Reavis v. Leleua, 7 A.S.R.3d 220 (Land & Titles Div. 2003). Beyond a mere claim to individually-owned title to the Land, largely grounded on Arthur Young's vague recollection of his aunts' hearsay accounts, coupled with some evidence of intermittent occupation by Plaintiffs' side of the family, we find no credible proofs to substantiate Plaintiff's claim of individualized title. Furthermore, Plaintiff Young testified in court that the Land was not owned by any individual. [**5**]

We are not persuaded that Plaintiffs have shown "substantial likelihood that [they] will prevail at trial on the merits." A.S.C.A. § 43.1301(j)(1).

Plaintiffs also argue that they would be irreparably harmed if the Defendants are not enjoined from cutting down crops on the Land. However, as we have alluded to above, Plaintiffs have pretty much left the Land unattended and unoccupied for quite some time. Accordingly, we find insufficient showing of "irreparable injury" if Defendants are not enjoined, pending trial on the merits. A.S.C.A. § 43.1301(j)(2). Moreover, given the fact that Defendants have cultivated and planted crops on the Land, the balance of equities weigh in favor of denying the Motion.

Order

No sufficient grounds having been shown, Plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction is hereby denied. It is so ordered.