Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of American Samoa

Tuiolemotu v Fiame [2012] ASHC 49; AP 10-10 (30 October 2012)

OPINIONS

OF THE

APPELLATE DIVISION

OF THE

HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

(2012)

MUAAU FOFO TUIOLEMOTU and VAITAGALOA TUIOLEMOTU,
Defendants/Appellants,

v.

TUILEPA TUILEATA (TELESIA) FIAME, PALE FE’A, SIMATIVA MAKIASI, and WILLIAM C. FE’A,
Plaintiffs/Appellees.

TUILEPA TUILEATA (TELESIA) FIAME, PALE FE’A, SIMATIVA MAKIASI, and WILLIAM C. FE’A,
Plaintiffs/Appellants,

v.

MUAAU FOFO TUILOLEMOTU and VAITAGALOA TUIOLEMOTU,
Defendants/Appellees.

High Court of American Samoa
Appellate Division

AP No. 10-10
AP No. 11-10

October 30, 2012

[1] A court abuses its discretion when it “does not apply the correct law or rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of material fact.

[2] In the context of a T.C.R.C.P. 60(b) motion, an abuse of discretion is only established where no reasonable person could agree with the trial court; if reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the court’s action, no abuse of discretion has been shown.

[3] A party must file a motion for a new trial and/or to alter or amend a judgment, with the trial court, prior to appealing a decision on a T.C.R.C.P. 60(b) motion.

[4] A post-final-judgment-relief T.C.R.C.P. 60(b) movant does not have to re-comply with A.S.C.A. § 43.0302; hence, a separate certificate of irreconcilable dispute is not required in a Rule 60(b) motion involving the same parties and the same disputed land.

[5] Having missed the one-year time limitation requirement, T.C.R.C.P. 60(b) nevertheless mandates that an “extraordinary circumstances” claim shall be made within a reasonable time. What constitutes a reasonable time will depend on the particular circumstances of a case, taking into consideration the strong interest in finality of judgments, the reason for delay, and the possibility of prejudice to the opposing party.

[6] If a movant seeks to circumvent the one-year time limitation, the movant bears the heavy burden of showing “extraordinary circumstances” justifying relief. Further, the extraordinary circumstances (i) must be beyond the movant’s control, (ii) the delay must have been a direct result of the extraordinary circumstances, and (iii) the movant must have exercised “due diligence” in preserving the right to appeal.

[7] Unfamiliarity with the law is not a proper basis for seeking relief under T.C.R.C.P. 60(b) beyond the limitations period.

Before WARD, Associate Justice; PATEA,^[*]