OPINIONS

OF THE

APPELLATE DIVISION

OF THE

HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

(2002)

STANCRIS SALES COMPANY,
Appellants,
 
v.
 
J.J. YONG aka JUM-YONG CHUM aka Mr. Chung aka YUNG CHUNG KIM, PETELO UTI and SO KUN JOO dba MALAEIMI VALLEY MART,
Appellees.
 
High Court of American Samoa
Appellate Division
 
AP No. 12-99
 
August 2, 2002
  
[1] Where statute of limitations defense was premised upon when plaintiff knew of should have known the evidentiary basis of his claim, triable issue of fact existed and trial court's grant of summary judgment was improper. 
 
Before KRUSE, Chief Justice, WALLACE, Acting Associate Justice, MOLLWAY, Acting Associate Justice, MAMEA, Associate Judge, TUPUIVAO, Associate Judge. 

Counsel: For Appellant, Katopau Ainu'u 
 For Appellees, Paul F. Miller 
 
OPINION AND ORDER
 
The trial court awarded summary judgment to appellees finding that appellant's cause of action for fraud was barred by the statute of limitations. Specifically, the court found that appellant "knew or should have known" the evidentiary basis of his claim by a certain time frame. Stancris Sales Co., v. Yong, CA No. 47-99, slip op. at 4 (Trial Div. Sept. 9, 1999) (Order Granting Defense Motion for Summary Judgment). 
 
[1] We find that the statute of limitations presents a triable issue of fact and therefore conclude that summary judgment is not appropriate. T.C.R.C.P. Rule 56. We accordingly reverse and remand. 
 
Appellee‟s motion for T.C.R.C.P. Rule 11 sanctions is denied. 
 
It is so ordered. 
 
**********