SLIP OPINIONS
 
OF THE
 
LAND AND TITLES DIVISION
 
OF THE
 
HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA
 
(2014)

TAUA'I IOAPO JR., Claimant,
 
v.
 
AVIATA FANO FA'ALEVAO, Counter-claimant.

_______________________________________________________
 
[In re Matai Title "PAPALAUENA" of the village of Olosega]
 
High Court of American Samoa
Land and Titles Division
 
MT No. 02-02
 
March 11, 2014

[1] The decision whether to grant a motion for reconsideration or new trial is left to the broad discretion of the trial court. 
 
[2] A motion for reconsideration or new trial should be based on a manifest mistake of fact or error of law, and the court should find substantial reasons before setting aside a judgment. 
 
[3] A party moving for new trial must do more than reiterate the trial court's reasons for a decision and then make a blind assertion that the court is incorrect. 
 
[4] T.C.R.C.P. 7(b)(1) requires that an application to the court for any order shall be by motion, which shall state the grounds with particularity. The particularity requirement is especially important for a motion for new trial, one of whose purposes is to avoid unnecessary appeals by alerting the trial court to possible errors or omissions in its opinion. 
 
[5] The Court did not make a manifest mistake of fact in determining that the family had held a proper family meeting to determine a matai successor when it found that there were two distinct descent groups within the family and that all clans were represented at the meeting. 
 
[6] A party cannot file partial motions and later argue supplement issues at oral argument as the Court has no jurisdiction to hear extrinsic issues. 
 
[7] A court should not automatically or casually grant a stay of judgment pending appeal; instead, the court's discretion to grant a stay should be exercised only if cause is shown. 
 
[8] A judgment will be stayed when it appears to the trial or appellate court that there is a strong chance the judgment will be vacated on appeal; that compliance with the judgment during the pendency of the appeal would so change the status quo as to amount to an effective denial of the right to appeal, or would otherwise work extraordinary hardship on the appellant; that little or no hardship would be imposed on adverse parties by appellant's noncompliance; or that some combination of these conditions overcomes the presumption in favor of allowing each party the present enjoyment of what has been held to be his lawful rights. 
 
Before KRUSE, Chief Justice; LOGOAI, Chief Associate Judge; MAMEA, Associate Judge; FA'AMAUSILI, Associate Judge; and MUASAU, Associate Judge 
 
Counsel: For Claimant, Afoa L.S. Lutu, substituted by Matailupevao 
 Leupolu, Jr. 
 For Counter-claimant, Pro se, substituted by M. Talaimalo 
 Uiagalelei 
 
ORDER ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND/OR STAY
 
On October 16, 2013, this Court issued its Opinion and Order awarding the matai title "Papalauena" to the Claimant, Taua'i Ioapo, Jr. On October 25, 2013, Counterclaimant Aviata Fano Fa'alevao timely filed a motion for reconsideration and/or for a new trial and motion for stay of enforcement of judgment. This matter came to hearing on February 12, 2014. For reasons addressed below, we deny both motions. 
 
Discussion
 
1. Motion for New Trial 
 
[1-2] The decision whether to grant a motion for reconsideration or new trial is left to the broad discretion of the trial court. [**2**] Pulu v. Pulu, 8 A.S.R.3d 230 (Land & Titles Div. 2004). A motion for reconsideration or new trial should be based on a manifest mistake of fact or error of law, and the court should find substantial reasons before setting aside a judgment. Id. 
 
[3-4] A party moving for new trial must do more than reiterate the trial court's reasons for a decision and then make a blind assertion that the court is incorrect. G.M. Meredith & Assoc. v. Blue Pac. Mgmt. Corp., 28 A.S.R.2d 204 (Trial Div. 1995). It is the attorney's, not the court's, job to advocate, do legal research, and construct the legal theory upon which a losing party might oppose our decision. Id. Moreover, T.C.R.C.P. 7(b)(1) requires that an application to the court for any order shall be by motion which shall state with particularity the grounds therefore. This particularity requirement is especially important for a motion for new trial, one of whose purposes is to avoid unnecessary appeals by alerting the trial court to possible errors or omissions in its opinion. Id.; Kim v. Star-Kist Samoa, Inc., 8 A.S.R.2d 146 (App. Div. 1988); Taulaga v. Patea, 17 A.S.R.2d 34 (App. Div. 1990); Judicial Memorandum No. 2-87, 4 A.S.R.2d. 172 (1987). 
 
[5] Counterclaimant's motion for new trial contains one argument--that the Court did not have proper jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter because there was no proper family meeting. This argument is unavailing. The Court made no manifest mistake of fact in determining that the Papalauena [**3**] family in fact held a proper family meeting to determine a matai successor. The thrust of Counterclaimant's argument is that the Papalauena family is comprised of multiple clans, some of whom were not present at the family meeting. However, the Court found that there are two distinct descent groups within the family and that all clans were represented at the meeting. Counterclaimant has failed to convince the Court that this finding was a manifest mistake. Rather, we remain satisfied that the finding is substantially based on the evidence. 
 
[6] At the February 12, 2014 hearing, Counterclaimant attempted to argue additional basis for a new trial that were not raised in the Motion for New Trial. Such tactic violates the particularity requirement of T.C.R.C.P. 7(b) to which attorneys are bound. Parties cannot file partial motions and hope to later supplement issues at oral argument. The Court has no jurisdiction to hear extrinsic issues, Patea, 17 A.S.R.2d, and the Court will not consider them. 
 
2. Motion for Stay of Enforcement of Judgment 
 
[7-8] A court should not automatically or casually grant a stay of judgment pending appeal; the court's discretion to grant a stay should be exercised only if cause is shown. A.S.C.A. § 43.0803; T.C.R.C.P. 62; Asifoa v. Lualemana, 17 A.S.R.2d 10, 12 (App. Div. 1990). A judgment will be stayed when it appears to the trial or appellate court that there is a strong chance the judgment will be vacated on appeal (e.g., when the correctness of [**4**] the trial court decision depends on a question of law that can fairly be characterized as a close one); that compliance with the judgment during the pendency of the appeal would so change the status quo as to amount to an effective denial of the right to appeal, or would otherwise work extraordinary hardship on the appellant; that little or no hardship would be imposed on adverse parties by appellant's noncompliance; or that some combination of these conditions overcomes the presumption in favor of allowing each party the present enjoyment of what has been held to be his lawful rights. Id. 
 
Counterclaimant attempts to argue that the equities favor a stay because the public and family would be confused if Taua'i proceeds with the use of the Papalauena matai title, only to face the Appellate Division's reversal of the trial court's judgment in his favor. According to Counterclaimant, confusion was the result of the Appellate Division's recent decision overturning the Land and Titles Division in Leautu v. Nu'utai, AP No. 11-11 (App. Div. Aug. 7, 2013). The argument is specious. First it is entirely dependent on the presumption that Counterclaimant will, as did the appellant in Leautu, prevail on appeal. However, Counterclaimant has failed to show that there is a strong chance the judgment will be vacated on appeal. Counterclaimant similarly does not argue any of the additional factors the court is to consider in granting or denying a motion for stay of enforcement of judgment. There is thus no cause shown that a [**5**] stay should be granted. Secondly, since Counterclaimant's Leautu based argument is dependent on the presumption of prevailing on the merits, it necessarily advocates, contrary to precedent, the abrogation of the "balancing of equities" exercise; it necessarily advocates a stay as of right pending appeal. 
 
Since the court must not casually grant a stay, we will not. 
 
Order
 
Counterclaimant's Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial and Motion for Stay of Enforcement of Judgment are hereby denied. 
 
It is so ordered. 
 
**********