Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Chuuk State Court

In re Land Noota, Neppi [2008] FMCSC 5; 15 FSM Intrm. 518 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2008) (21 February 2008)

CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION
CSSC PROBATE NO. 38-2007

IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND NOOTA, NEPPI of Deceased Sakiama Kubo,

By: Tosiko Kubo, Martina Hartmann,
and Juliana Hartmann,
Petitioners.
_______________________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Camillo Noket
Chief Justice

Hearing: January 31, 2008
Decided: February 21, 2008

APPEARANCE:

For the Petitioners: George Hauk
P.O. Box 1405
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTE

Domestic Relations  Probate; Judgments  Collateral Attack

As the purpose of probate is not to determine issues of ownership, probate petitioners should resolve issues regarding land ownership, if any, before they proceed with probate. Otherwise, the probate proceeding may be subject to collateral attack from those who may claim an interest in the property and who were not given notice or made a party to this proceeding. In re Land Noota, Neppi[2008] FMCSC 5; , 15 FSM Intrm. 518, 519 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2008).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

CAMILLO NOKET, Chief Justice:

1. On October 8, 2007, petitioners filed a probate petition requesting their appointment as administratrix for their deceased family member, Sakiama Kubo.
   
2. On January 31, 2008, the court held a scheduled hearing. Petitioners and George Hauk, as their counsel, appeared.
   
3. For the reasons set forth on the record and memorialized herein, the court ordered dismissal of the petition without prejudice.
   

Legal Analysis

Petitioners' petition raised, on its face, an issue as to their legal claim to the real property, "Noota, Neppi," for which they are requesting probate. In paragraphs 6-9 of their petition, petitioners state that Kubo, the deceased, permitted other relatives to occupy the property and that, since Kubo's death, these relatives continue to occupy and landscape the property. According to petitioners, these persons have been "scolded" but continue to landscape the land without petitioners' permission. Pet. para. 9. The court took judicial notice that petitioners had raised an issue as to their claim of ownership over Noota, Neppi.

Therefore, as the purpose of probate is not to determine issues of ownership, the court advised petitioners that issues regarding ownership, if any, should be resolved before they proceed with probate. Otherwise, the probate proceeding may be subject to collateral attack from those who may claim an interest in the property and who were not given notice or made a party to this proceeding. See Pastor v. Ngusun, [2002] FMCSC 17; 11 FSM Intrm. 281 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2002).

* * * *