Cite as Heirs of George v. Heirs of Dizon, 14 FSM Intrm. 556 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2007)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-06
Hearing: November 28, 2006
Decided: February 12, 2007
APPEARANCES:
| For the Appellants: | Sasaki L. George, Esq. |
| Micronesian Legal Services Corporation | |
| P.O. Box 38 | |
| Lelu, Kosrae FM 96944 | |
| For the Appellees: | Robinson Timothy |
| P.O. Box 261 | |
| Lelu, Kosrae FM 96944 |
The standard of review for appeals from the Land Court is set by statute. Findings and decisions of the Land Court will be overturned if they are not supported by substantial evidence or if they are contrary to the law. In considering whether the decisions were based upon substantial evidence, the Kosrae State Court recognizes that it is primarily the Land Court’s task to assess the credibility of the witnesses, the admissibility of evidence and to resolve factual disputes. On appeal, the Kosrae State Court should not substitute its judgment for the well-founded findings of the lower court. Heirs of George v. Heirs of Dizon, 14 FSM Intrm. 556, 558 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2007).
When creating the Land Court, the Kosrae Legislature provided for the transition of cases from the Land Commission to the Land Court and the Land Court succeeded to all Land Commission responsibilities, registers, properties and assets and Land Commission land determinations and registrations are equivalent to Land Court title determinations and registrations. Heirs of George v. Heirs of Dizon, 14 FSM Intrm. 556, 558 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2007).
Since The Land Court took over the Land Commission's responsibilities and is required by statute to give effect to Land Commission determinations, it does not have the discretion to ignore a Land Commission determination even when the Commissioners signed an adjudication to indicate their decision rather than issue a separate document. The Land Court does not have the discretion to ignore a Land Commission determination because it has not yet been served on the parties. The Land Court's duty is to take over, or "succeed" the Land Commission's responsibilities, not re-hear matters previously decided by them. Heirs of George v. Heirs of Dizon, 14 FSM Intrm. 556, 559 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2007).
The Kosrae State Court must uphold Land Commission findings as issued by the Land Court if they are supported by substantial evidence. This does not mean that the evidence must be uncontroverted or undisputed. Heirs of George v. Heirs of Dizon, 14 FSM Intrm. 556, 559 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2007).
That the Land Commission determination was not timely served on the parties since it was signed in 1990 and not served until the Land Court took action to complete the matter in January 2006, is not a ground to set aside the determination or to ignore the record made by the Land Commission because Kosrae Code § 11.616 requires that the Land Court treat the Land Commission's determinations as equivalent to its own determinations and there is no language setting a time restriction on this requirement. Despite the extended delay in service, the Land Court correctly gave force and effect to the Land Commission's determination. Heirs of George v. Heirs of Dizon, 14 FSM Intrm. 556, 559 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2007).
ALIKSA B. ALIKSA, Chief Justice:
Appellants appeal from an Order of Dismissal issued by the Land Court on January 20, 2006. The Land Court held that because the Land Commission previously decided ownership for Parcel Nos. 057M04 and 057M05, the Land Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case again. Also, because the decision of the Land Commission had not been served on all parties, the Land Court gave notice of the earlier decision and informed the parties of their opportunity to appeal. The Land Court reached its decision after HO Franky Dizon moved for dismissal and after reviewing the record and hearing arguments from the parties.
This Court heard oral argument from the parties on November 28, 2006. Sasaki George appeared on behalf of Appellants. Robinson Timothy appeared on behalf of Appellees.
Based upon the record in this matter, arguments made at the hearing and applicable law, I uphold the Order of the Land Court and find in favor of the Appellees. This Memorandum of Decision explains the Court's decision and reasoning.
Appellants state that their issues on appeal are:
1. Whether this dismissal was contrary to law; and
2. Whether the Land Court's dismissal based on the Land Commission's prevision decision was based on substantial evidence.
Was the dismissal contrary to law?
Appellants argue that they were not given notice that the Land Court was going to review the records and that they did not have the opportunity to challenge the evidence in those records. Appellants maintain that they are entitled to a new evidentiary hearing in this matter because the record from the Land Commission did not conform to current rules and statutes and this is a violation of their rights.
Appellees argue that the Land Court is required by Kosrae Code § 11.616 to respect the decisions made by the Land Commission. And, because the Land Commission made a determination but never served notice, the Land Court's responsibility was limited to giving notice of that determination.
The standard of review for appeals from the Land Court are set by statute. Findings and decisions of the Land Court will be overturned if they are not supported by substantial evidence or if they are contrary to the law. Kos. S.C. § 11.614(5)(d). In considering whether the decisions were based upon substantial evidence, this Court recognizes that it is primarily the task of the Land Court to assess the credibility of the witnesses, the admissibility of evidence and to resolve factual disputes. Anton v Heirs of Shrew, 10 FSM Intrm. 162 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2001). On appeal, this Court should not substitute its judgment for the well-founded findings of the lower court. Heirs of Mongkeya v. Heirs of Mackwelung, 8 FSM Intrm. 31 (Kos, St. Ct. Tr. 1997).
The record in this matter shows that the Land Registration Team (LRT) gathered preliminary testimony following notice. Yosie George and Nena Livaie then completed Applications for Registration. Formal testimony was gathered, again after notice. The LRT completed its adjudication. This adjudication is a written document that includes findings of fact and opinions on ownership. This document was submitted to the Land Commission. The Commissioners concurred with the adjudication according to their signatures on that document.
Appellants argue that this does not qualify as a determination by the Land Commission and it was not served on the parties. So, the Land Court must now start over by conducting a site visit, producing a new map, holding new hearings, and issuing a new decision based on the current statutes and rules.
When creating the Land Court, the Legislature provided for the transition of cases from the Land Commission to the Land Court. This process is governed by Kosrae Code § 11.616, which states:
The Chief Justice of the Kosrae State Court and the Principal Justice of the Land Court shall take any actions necessary for the orderly transition of the State Judiciary under this Chapter.
(a) The Land Court shall succeed to all responsibilities, registers, properties and assets of the Land Commission.
(b) Land determinations and registrations issued by the Land Commission are equivalent to the title determinations and registrations of the Land Court created by this Chapter.
The Land Court took over the responsibilities of the Land Commission and is required by statute to give effect to determinations issued by the Land Commission. Kos. S.C. § 11.616(b). It does not have the discretion to ignore a determination by the Land Commission because Commissioners signed an adjudication to indicate their decision rather than issue a separate document. It does not have the discretion to ignore a determination by the Land Commission because it has not yet been served on the parties. The duty of the Land Court is to take over, or "succeed" the responsibilities of the Land Commission, not re-hear matters previously decided by them. This means it cannot re-hear the case again.
When the Land Court served the determination of the Land Commission and issued its order to dismiss the current case, it properly treated the Land Commission's determination as equivalent to a title determination by the Land Court. The Land Court's reason for dismissal was that the Land Commission previously issued a decision and the Land Court lacked authority to adjudicate matters the Land Commission already decided. The Land Court concluded that the only remaining duty was administrative - to properly serve the Commission decision. This action by the Land Court complies with KSC § 11.616.
Was the Land Court's dismissal based on the Land Commission's prevision decision was based on substantial evidence?
The record contains a certified map issued in 1990 that shows both parcels, 057M04 and 057M05. The map is based on boundaries marked in the presence of Linus George and Nena Livaie, the predecessor in interest to Appellees, as well as testimony from witnesses.
We note that Appellants claim that the LRT should not have collected testimony from several of the witnesses as part of their argument. However, we find that this supports Appellees argument that the LRT diligently pursued its preliminary inquiry.
The record shows that both Yosie George and Ysekik Frankie (for Dison Frankie) signed the notice of formal hearing and that the Land Commission considered the claim that Linus George had purchased the land from Nena Livaie. The record also indicates that the Land Commission was aware of the Trust Territory Court decision in Case No. 112 in favor of Nena Livaie.
This Court must uphold the findings of the Land Commission as issued by the Land Court in this case if they are supported by substantial evidence. Kos. S.C. § 11.614(5)(d). This does not mean that the evidence must be uncontroverted or undisputed. The Land Commission's decision is based on testimony from a number of witnesses and on a certified map. The map relied on boundary markers set by Linus George and Nena Livaie. Here, Yosie Linus George, after Linus George passed away, offered testimony that differed from that of other witnesses and the map. But, the evidence was sufficient to support the findings and conclusions as made by the Land Commission.
Appellants also point out that the determination by the Land Commission was not timely served on the parties. It was signed in 1990 and not served until the Land Court took action to complete this matter in January 2006. However, this is not grounds to set aside the determination or to ignore the record made by the Land Commission. As noted above, Kosrae Code § 11.616 requires that the Land Court treat the Land Commission's determinations as equivalent to its own determinations. There is no language setting a time restriction on this requirement. Despite the extended delay in service, the Land Court correctly gave force and effect to the Land Commission's determination.
Therefore, the decision of the Land Court is affirmed.
Judgment is entered in favor of the Appellees and against the Appellants.