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

Ala'ilima v Territorial Registrar [2013] ASHC 32; LT 02-09 (19 July 2013)

SLIP OPINIONS

OF THE

LAND AND TITLES DIVISION

OF THE

HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

(2013)

CHARLES V. ALA’ILIMA, as trustee for the ESTATE OF LEFAGA SOLIAI BEAVER,
Plaintiff,

v.

TERRITORIAL REGISTRAR, ALBERT MAILO, SAM KUPA and NANCY KUPA, VIENA TIATIA and ATUMAUGA TIATIA, LUANI LU’UGA, FEO LAGAFUAINA, as administrator of the ESTATE OF LAGAFUAINA LAISENE, and DOES I-XX,
Defendants.
_____________________________________

FEO LAGAFUAINA, as administrator of the ESTATE OF LAGAGUAINA LAISENE,
Cross-Plaintiff,

v.

ALBERT MAILO,
Cross-Defendant.
_____________________________________

SAM and NANCY KUPA and VIENA and ATUMAUGA TIATIA,
Cross-Plaintiffs,

v.
ALBERT MAILO,
Cross-Defendant.

High Court of American Samoa
Land & Titles Division

LT No. 02-09

July 19, 2013

[1] Laches is an equitable defense that bars an action where an unreasonable delay in one party‘s assertion of its rights results in another party‘s undue prejudice. The court determines the applicability of laches on a case by case basis.

[2] There are too many unknown facts surrounding the delay in filing suit to grant summary judgment on the ground of laches. More evidence must be presented before it becomes clear whether laches should apply.

[3] The defendant failed to prove adverse possession where the plaintiff consented to the his occupancy of the land, he had not met the 30 year statutory possession period, and he could not avail himself of tacking because he was not related to the individual who deeded him the subject land.

[4] There is no conflict of interest where an attorney presently serving as the administrator of an estate and representing the estate and himself pro se previously represented a third party in an unsuccessful claim to a portion of land included in the estate that is the subject of the current litigation.

[5] Where a defendant warranted to subsequent purchasers of parcels of his land that he had the authority and right to sell those parcels, he is required to defend the subsequent purchasers title against all other claims to their parcels and is required to indemnify the subsequent purchasers for any costs they incur defending the action.