Cite as FSM Dev. Bank v. Arthur,13 FSM Intrm. 1(Pon. 2004)

[13 FSM Intrm. 280]

CIVIL ACTION NO. 105-03

Decided: June 16, 2005

APPEARANCES:

HEADNOTES

Appellate Review – Rehearing

After an appellate court has issued its opinion, it may grant a motion for reconsideration if it has overlooked or misapprehended points of law or fact. Ordinarily such motions are summarily denied. A motion for reconsideration's summary denial is proper when the court has neither overlooked nor misapprehended any points of law or fact. Sigrah v. Heirs of Nena, 13 FSM Intrm. 280, 281 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2005).

Appellate Review – Rehearing

When the points of law and fact referred to in a motion for reconsideration were not overlooked or misapprehended in the appeal's previous consideration, the motion for rehearing will be denied. Sigrah v. Heirs of Nena, 13 FSM Intrm. 280, 281 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2005).

[13 FSM Intrm. 281]

COURT'S OPINION

YOSIWO P. GEORGE, Chief Justice:

On April 28, 2005, Appellant, Individually as an Heir of Joseph Nelson, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Memorandum of Decision entered on April 13, 2005 [Sigrah v. Heirs of Nena, 13 FSM Intrm. 192 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2005)]. In his Motion, Appellant argues that this Court committed manifest error by failing to conclude that the Land Court's decision on appeal was clearly erroneous. Appellant relies upon his previous argument that the Land Court failed to properly consider the "agreed sketch" and master's report, part of the record in Civil Action No. 305 (T.T.H.C. 1969). Appellant also relies upon his previous argument that the upper land at Fwinef, formerly designated as Japanese Lot # 292, was improperly partitioned into two, and then later into three parcels.

After an appellate court has issued its opinion, it may grant a motion for reconsideration it if has overlooked or misapprehended points of law or fact. Ordinarily such motions are summarily denied. Nena v. Kosrae (II), 6 FSM Intrm. 564 (App. 1994). Summary denial of a motion for reconsideration is proper when the court has neither overlooked nor misapprehended any points of law or fact. Nahnken of Nett v. United States, 7 FSM Intrm. 612 (App. 1996).

This Court has carefully considered the Appellant's arguments in his Motion and has carefully reviewed its Memorandum of Decision and the record on appeal. Following such careful consideration and review, this Court concludes that it has not overlooked or misapprehended the points of law and fact which were raised by the Appellant. Where the points of law and fact referred to in the Motion for Reconsideration were not overlooked or misapprehended in the previous consideration of the appeal, the Motion for Rehearing will be denied. Carlos v. FSM, 4 FSM Intrm. 32 (App. 1989). Accordingly, Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.