1 MILR (Rev.) 172

IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

S.Ct. CIVIL NO. 88-01
(High Ct. Civil No. 1987-012)

ADDE MWEDRIKTOK,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

-v-

LIEJBAD LANGIJOTA, and INOKKO ABIJA,
Defendants-Appellants.

APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT

AUGUST 15, 1989

ASHFORD, C.J.
KING, A.J. pro tem,1 and KOBAYASHI, A.J. pro tem2

SUMMARY:

In a dispute over entitlement to "in lieu of copra" and "land use" payments the Supreme Court held that the High Court's application of the principle of res judicata and division of payments in one-third shares among the iroijlaplap, alap and dri jerbal were correct.

DIGEST:

1. APPEAL AND ERROR – Review – Discretionary Matters – Findings of Fact: Findings of fact by the High Court are not to be set aside by the Supreme Court unless found to be clearly erroneous.

2. LAND RIGHTS – Distribution of Land Use Payments: Allocating equal thirds of payments for land use and in lieu of copra to the iroijlaplap, alap and dri jerbal is consistent with Marshallese practice.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY KING, A.J.

Defendants-Appellants Liejbad Langijota ("Langijota") and Inokko Abija ("Abija") appeal from a High Court decision involving the allocation of payments originating from the United States to the displaced residents of Eru island, Kwajalein Atoll.

Appellants claim three points of error: (1) The High Court's ruling is contrary to Marshallese custom, tradition, and practice, (2) The High Court erred in giving more rights to Plaintiff-Appellee Adde Mwedriktok ("Mwedriktok") than Mwedriktok had and in finding that Mwedriktok represents seven families, (3) The High Court erred in concluding that the "in lieu of copra" payments are the same as the Kwajalein Atoll Land Use Agreement ("KALUA") "land use" payments.

In its findings of fact, the High Court found that the parties in the case were the same as or in privity with the parties in an earlier case, Lijbalang Binni and Tojiro Lomae v. Adde Mwedriktok, Samuel Lemto, Maina Jajo, Maka P. and Daina Mae, Civil No. 318 (1971) ("Binni"). The High Court also found that the issues raised in the case were the same, with two exceptions not relevant here, as those in Binni. Based upon these findings, the High Court held that the principles of res judicata applied so that the Court was bound by the holding in Binni.

The issue in Binni was whether Lijbalang Binni, Langijota's predecessor, or Mwedriktok was the rightful alap of Eru Island. Binni held that Binni, Langijota's predecessor, was the alap of Eru Island and so was entitled to the alap's share of the payments. The Binni court remarked that this title of alap was "an empty honor" so long as the government continued to exclude the people from mid-atoll islands of Kwajalein. The court held, by agreement of the parties, that the government payments to the displaced Eru Island residents were to be divided equally among the eleven families of Eru Island in accordance with the directive of Iroijiaplap Albert Loeak. Binni also held that Abija's predecessor represented four families and that Mwedriktok represented the remaining seven.

Based upon its finding that res judicata applied, the High Court held that Langijota – as Binni's successor – was the alap of Eru Island. The High Court took judicial notice of the "undisputed and prevailing customary practice among the people of the Marshall Islands" that the interests in land are shared in thirds by the iroijlaplap, alap, and dri jerbal. The High Court therefore held that Binni's statement that the alap title was "an empty honor" had to be modified in light of the Marshall Islands' Constitution ("Constitution") which mandates that these customary practices not be invalidated, citing Constitution, Article X, § 1(1). The High Court therefore clarified that Langijota as alap is entitled to receive for distribution one-third of all the "in lieu of copra" and "land use" payments. It was only due to the acquiescence of Binni - Langijota's predecessor - that the alap's customary one-third share was combined with the other one-third and distributed equally among the eleven families as directed by Iroijiaplap Albert Loeak.

The High Court also held that Abija and Mwedriktok, as dri jerbals representing eleven families, were entitled to the remaining third of the government payments – with Abija entitled to 4/11 of the one-third to distribute to the four families whom he represents and Mwedriktok entitled to the remaining 7/11 of the one-third to distribute to the seven families whom he represents. The High Court further held that all of these payments are to be retroactive to 1983, and Langijota and Abija shall pay to Mwedriktok any sums which exceed the amounts that they are entitled to under the High Court's judgment.

The High Court also found that the "in lieu of copra" payments and the KALUA "land use" payments were both "based on the interest in land held by the recipients of the payments and were and are being made because the people of Eru Island were displaced from their island."

[1] The High Court's findings of fact are not to be set aside by this Court unless found to be clearly erroneous. Judiciary Act, § 66(2). Appellants fail to show clear error in the High Court's findings that the parties in the current action are the same or in privity with the parties in Binni and that the issues here are the same as in Binni. Therefore, this Court finds no error in the High Court's conclusion that res judicata applies.

[2] Appellants' first point of error that the High Court's ruling is contrary to Marshallese custom, tradition, and practice is without merit. Allocating equal thirds of the payments to the iroijlaplap, alap, and dri jerbal is consistent with Marshallese practice. Appellants fail to provide support for their bold statement that Mashallese practice grants Langijota the discretion as alap to disregard the court's judgment in Binni and cut off Mwedriktok's rights altogether.

Appellant's second point of error also fails to acknowledge Binni and the principles of res judicata which bound the High Court and bind this Court as well. Binni held that Mwedriktok was not the alap of Eru Island, and so by necessary deduction that he was a dri jerbal, and that he represented seven of the eleven families. Therefore, Appellants argument that the High Court erred in giving Mwedriktok more rights than he had and in finding that he represented seven families is meritless.

Appellants also fail to show that the High Court's finding that the "in lieu of copra" payments and KALUA "land use" payments were based on the displaced Eru Island residents' interest in land was clearly erroneous. Appellants' argument that this Court should compare the market value of the land with the market value of the crops produced is disingenuous: accepting Appellants stated values for purposes of this appeal, it is clear that there is a marked difference between the land's market value and the crops' market value. However, Appellants neglect to point out the relevance of this difference to the High Court's finding that both payments are based on the displaced residents' interests in Eru Island.

The judgment of the High Court is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Mollie M. Lennarz (Ruben R. Zackhras on the brief) for Defendants-Appellants
Anibar L. Timothy for Plaintiff-Appellee

_____________

1Honorable Samuel P. King, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii by appointment of the Cabinet.

2Honorable Bert T. Kobayashi, Associate Justice Emeritus of the Supreme Court of Hawaii, by appointment of the Cabinet.