Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Palau

  Download original PDF

Secharmidal v Ngiraikelau [2020] PWSC 25 (13 November 2020)

IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF PALAU
APPELLATE DIVISION

Cite as: 2020 Palau 25
Civil Appeal No. 20-018
Appeal from Civil Action No. 17-306

Decided: November 13, 2020

Counsel for Appellants .............................................. Johnson Toribiong

Counsel for Appellees .............................................. Siegfried B. Nakamura

BEFORE: JOHN K. RECHUCHER, Associate Justice
DANIEL R. FOLEY, Associate Justice
ALEXANDRO C. CASTRO, Associate Justice

Appeal from the Trial Division, the Honorable Kathleen M. Salii, Associate Justice,^[1] presiding.

OPINION[2]

PER CURIAM:

[ 1] tober 23, 2019, we affiraffirmed the Trial Division’s October 30, 2018 judgment requiring Appellants to vacate a parcel of land known as Brekong, and awarding fees and costs to Appellees. See Secharmidal v. Ngiraikelau, 2019 Palau 35 16. On March 12, 2020, Appellees moved the trial court for an order in aid of judgment because Appellants had not vacated the land. On July 13, after a hearing pursuant to 14 PNC § 2105, the trial court declined to address any arguments “raised in opposition that ha[ve] either been raised and addressed at the trial or on appeal, or [are] being raised for the first time at this stage of [the] litigation” and granted Appellees’ motion. Order in Aid of J. (Tr. Div. July 13, 2020). Specifically, the court ordered Appellants to vacate Brekong “by no later than August 14, 2020 in compliance with the Judgment entered on October 30, 2018.” Id. On August 4, Appellants timely appealed the trial court’s order. After having been denied a stay by the trial court, Appellants moved this Court for a stay on August 18. We denied Appellants’ request for a stay on October 21. Before this Court, Appellants contend that the trial court made various legal errors in determining that they must vacate Brekong, and that they must do so without compensation for their dwellings on the land.
[ 2] Althoeither side questioestions our jurisdiction, “we must be the most zealous watchdog over the limits of our own jurisdiction and therefore must consider it in connection with every appeal.1; Ngiraingas v. Shmullhmull, 2019 Palau 23 3. We have previously explained that an “[a]ction to enforce an earlier judgment is almost always ministerial and not appealable.” Baules v. Kuartel, 19 ROP 44, 46 (2012). Appellants take issue with a portion of the trial court’s order—requiring them to vacate Brekong—that “created no rights or responsibilities between the parties that hadn’t already been created by the original judgment.” Ngiraingas, 2019 Palau 23 7. In other words, Appellants challenge the portion of the trial court’s order that is simply ministerial and does no “more than simply reiterate the previous judgment.” Id. 8.^[3] For this reason, this Court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal.
[ 3] This appeal is DISMI/SED. Upon Appellees’ request, and pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, we ORDER Appellants to pay Appellees’ attorney’s fees arising from their defense of this appeal. See ROP R. App. P. 38 (“If the Appellate Division determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may award damages, including attorney’s fees, to the appellee.”); Baules, 19 ROP at 47. We further ORDER Appellants to pay Appellees’ costs for defending this appeal. See ROP R. App. P. 39(a) (“Except as otherwise provided by law, if an appeal is dismissed, costs shall be taxed against the appellant unless otherwise . . . ordered[.]”). Appellees’ counsel shall file a motion for attorney’s fees and costs within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this Opinion. Appellants may file a response within fourteen (14) days of the filing of Appellees’ motion. Such response shall be directed solely to the question of the reasonableness of the claimed attorney’s fees and costs. This Court will then issue an order directing Appellants to pay such attorney’s fees and costs as are reasonable.

^[1] Justice Salii became Presiding Justice of the Trial Division after the date of the Order in Aid of Judgment at issue in this appeal.

^[2] Neither side having requested oral argument, the Court determines pursuant to ROP R. App. P. 34(a) that oral argument is not necessary to resolve this appeal.
^[3] In addition to again ordering Appellants to vacate Brekong, the trial court’s order previewed that it would “issue further orders in aid of judgment thereafter on that portion of the judgment which awarded [Appellees] their costs and fees.” Order in Aid of J. (Tr. Div. July 13, 2020). After this appeal was filed, and after receiving submissions from the parties, the trial court issued a second order in aid of judgment requiring Appellants to pay the previously awarded attorney’s fees and costs and additional fees and costs that accrued after the October 30, 2018 judgment. Appellants have not appealed from this second order or otherwise challenged it in their present appeal, so we need not, and do not, opine as to our hypothetical jurisdiction over this aspect of the trial court’s orders. Cf. Ngiraingas v. Shmull, 2019 Palau 23 5-9 (exercising jurisdiction over a challenge to the minimum monthly payment and schedule of payments contained in an order in aid of judgment where the original judgment did not set the minimum monthly payment or payment schedule).