[11 FSM Intrm. 246]

* * * *

HEADNOTES

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

ALIKSA B. ALIKSA, Associate Justice:

     This matter was called for trial on November 14, 2002. Plaintiff was represented by Akiyusi Palsis. Clanry Likiaksa appeared for all the Defendants, except for Defendant[s State of Kosrae and] Kosrae State Land Commission, who had previously been dismissed from this action pursuant to this Court's Order entered on September 30, 2002. Joab P. Sigrah testified at the trial as the only witness.

Following the trial, I announced my decision in this case. I found in favor of the Plaintiff, ordered that all Determinations of Ownership and Certificates of Title issued for Innem parcels be set aside as void, and remanded this matter to the Kosrae Land Court for further hearings and decision. This Memorandum of Decision explains the Court's decision and reasoning.

I. Finding of Facts.

      The following facts are undisputed. In 1976, Misima Palik filed a trespass action against Joab P. Sigrah and others with respect to Japanese Lots 440, 442, 443, 444, 445, 448, and 449, located at Innem. This case was docketed as Misima Palik v. Joab P. Sigrah et al., Civil Action No. 60-76, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands High Court (1981). The Court in Misima Palik v. Joab P. Sigrah entered judgment for the defendants and held that the land in dispute was owned by defendant Joab P. Sigrah, as successor to Paul Sigrah, and that the plaintiffs had no rights therein. (Judgment, Feb. 23, 1981). The Court takes judicial notice of the judgment and the record of Trust Territory Civil Action 60-76.

     In June 1972, prior to the filing of the complaint in Misima Palik v. Joab P. Sigrah, all of the land at issue was designated as a "registration area" under Title 67 of the Trust Territory Code. In the early 1980s, after judgment was entered in Misima Palik v. Joab P. Sigrah, the Kosrae State Land Commission held proceedings on the subject lots. The subject lots, Lots 440, 442, 443, 444, 445, 448, and 449, were divided into parcels, and renamed, pursuant to the new numbering system for land title registration in the State of Kosrae. Although hearing notices were posted for the proceedings, Joab P. Sigrah, a claimant to all those parcels, was not given personal notice of the Land Commission proceedings. Virtually all of the subject parcels were awarded to persons other than Joab P. Sigrah. The parcels, claimed by the Plaintiff, which were awarded to the Defendants are the following: 042-K-01, 042-K-03, 042-K-04, 042-K-05, 042-K-06, 042-K-07, 042-K-08, 042-K-10, 043-K-01, 043-K-02, 043-K-03, 043-K-04, 043-K-05, 055-K-05, 055-K-06, 055-K-07, 055-K-08, 055-K-09, and 055-K-10 (Innem parcels). The Certificates of Title for the Innem parcels were issued by the Land Commission from 1982 through 1987 to approximately twenty persons.

[11 FSM Intrm. 248]

II. Analysis.

     The Determinations of Ownership for the subject Innem parcels were awarded in the early 1980s, under the Trust Territory Government, by the Kosrae State Land Commission. The Trust Territory Code, Sections 110 and 114 requires that notice of the formal hearing and the determinations be served upon all interested persons.

Joab P. Sigrah was an interested person with respect to the Innem parcels. The Land Commission had knowledge and was aware of the interest of Joab Sigrah in the Innem parcels. The record contains a letter dated September 18, 1984, from then Senior Commissioner Mitchell Aaron to Richard Sigrah, then Clerk of Court, requesting the case record for Civil Action 60-76. Senior Commissioner Aaron states in his letter: "This Office is aware of the case. Therefore, we would like to have for our records to know exactly what 'land' or 'parcels of land' is now owned by Defendant Joab P. Sigrah."

Clearly, the Land Commission knew of the judgment in Civil Action 60-76 and that Joab Sigrah was a claimant and interested party for the Innem parcels, which were the subject of the judgment in Civil Action 60-76 and later the subject of the Land Commission proceedings. Yet, even with this specific knowledge of Joab P. Sigrah as an interested person, the Land Commission failed to serve Joab P. Sigrah personal notice of the Land Commission proceedings for the Innem parcels, as required by law. It is undisputed that Joab P. Sigrah was not served personal notice of the formal hearings or the Determinations of Ownership for the Innem parcels.

In cases where an interested party has not been served statutory notice, the law is clear. Pursuant to established precedent of this Court, Determinations of Ownership and Certificates of Title shall be held void and vacated where proper notice was not given pursuant to statute. Actual notice to an interested party is required by personal service. See Nena v. Heirs of Nena, 9 FSM Intrm. 528 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2000); Nena v. Heirs of Melander, 9 FSM Intrm. 523 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2000); Isaac v. Benjamin, 9 FSM Intrm. 258 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 1999); Sigrah v. Kosrae State Land Comm'n, 9 FSM Intrm. 89 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 1999); Palik v. Henry, 7 FSM Intrm. 571 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 1996).

In this case, the Plaintiff was never served statutory notice of the formal hearings or Determinations of Ownership issued for the Innem parcels. Therefore, the Determinations of Ownership and Certificates of Title awarded for the Innem parcels must be vacated and set aside as void.

III. Judgment.

     Judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. The Determinations of Ownership and Certificates of Title for Innem Parcels 042-K-01, 042-K-03, 042-K-04, 042-K-05, 042-K-06, 042-K-07, 042-K-08, 042-K-10, 043-K-01, 043-K-02, 043-K-03, 043-K-04, 043-K-05, 055-K-05, 055-K-06, 055-K-07, 055-K-08, 055-K-09, and 055-K-10 are vacated and set aside as void. No monetary damages are awarded.

IV. Order of Remand.

     This matter is remanded to the Kosrae Land Court, who shall hold hearings and issue written findings and decision for each of the Innem parcels, consistent with the requirements of Title 11, Chapter 6, with the following instructions:

[11 FSM Intrm. 249]

     The possession and use of the Innem parcels shall continue without change, as status quo, until the findings and new decision by the Kosrae Land Court become final, including the disposition of appeals, if any.

* * * *