THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA
Cite as Emilios v. Setile,
6 FSM Intrm. 558 (Chuuk S. Ct. App.
1994)
KILOTA EMILIOS,
Appellant,
vs.
MISAEL SETILE,
Appellee.
CA APPEAL NO. 19
OPINION
Argued: September 9, 1994
Decided: October 21, 1994
BEFORE:
Hon. Machime O'Sonis, Associate Justice, Chuuk State Supreme Court
Hon. Yoster Carl, Temporary Justice, Chuuk State Supreme Court*
Hon. Midasy Aisek, Temporary Justice, Chuuk State Supreme Court**
*Associate Justice, Pohnpei Supreme Court, Kolonia, Pohnpei
**Trial Counsellor, Weno, Chuuk
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Anter Chipen
Trial Counsellor
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
For the Appellees: Joseph Muritok
j Office of the Chuuk Attorney General
P.O. Box 189
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
* * * *
HEADNOTES
Appeal and Certiorari ) Standard of
Review
A trial court's findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and the appellate court shall give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Emilios v. Setile, 6 FSM Intrm. 558, 560 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 1994).
Appeal and Certiorari ) Standard of
Review
A trial court's factual findings are presumed correct. An appellate court must be especially circumspect in reviewing a trial court for clear error when there was conflicting evidence presented on issues of fact because the trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor while it has not. Emilios v. Setile, 6 FSM Intrm. 558, 560 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 1994).
Appeal and Certiorari ) Standard of
Review
If an appellant alleging clear error fails to show that the trial court's factual finding was not supported by substantial evidence in the record, or that the factual finding was the result of an erroneous conception of the applicable law, or that, if after a consideration of the entire record, the appellate court is not left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, the appellate court can only affirm. Emilios v. Setile, 6 FSM Intrm. 558, 561 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 1994).
* * * *
COURT'S OPINION
MACHIME O'SONIS, Associate Justice:
The is an appeal from a judgment in the Trial Division that awarded the title to a parcel of land on Amwes Island in Namoluk Municipality. The court below determined that the appellees (herein referred to as Kachuo) were the traditional owners of the parcel known as Ululun Pieman,
which is part of a larger parcel known as Pieman. The appellants (herein referred to as Kilota) appealed claiming the trial court wrongly determined the facts and therefore the ownership. We affirm the judgment.
I. FACTS
The title to this property was originally vested with the Alien Property Custodian in 1961. In 1981 a case was filed in the former Trust Territory High Court as HC Case 106-81. That court determined that the Trust Territory Government had no interest in the land and it should be returned to the traditional owners. A second High Court action, HC Case 46-83, was instituted in 1983 to quiet title. Judgment was entered based on an agreement between the parties that the title should vest in "the traditional owners of said land, who shall be determined by the Court or by the Land Commission." This case was transferred to the Trial Division of this court. A trial was held and two different lineages represented by Kilota and Kachuo each claimed to be the traditional owners. The lower court found that the lineage represented by Kachuo was the traditional owners of the land in question.
Kilota appealed. Kilota's counsel has not identified the actual basis of his claimed error. At oral argument, counsel was unable to point to any specific error in the trial court's judgment other than his belief the trial court awarded title to the wrong party.
II. ISSUES
Given the wholesale failure of appellant's counsel to explain to this Court the errors committed below we can only assume that appellant is challenging the trial court's factual findings in general. We review such challenges under the clearly erroneous standard.
III. FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT
The factual findings of a trial court are governed by Rule 52 of our rules of civil procedure. Chk. Civ. R. 52. That rule states that the "[f]indings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous . . . ." Chk. Civ. R. 52(a). This is the source of the standard of appellate review. The rule further provides that the appellate court shall also give "due regard" to the "opportunity of the trial court to judge . . . the credibility of the witnesses." Id.
The appellate court starts its review of a trial court's factual findings by presuming the findings are correct. Cheni v. Ngusun, 6 FSM Intrm. 544, 546, 1 CSR 35, 37 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 1994). This means that the appellant has the burden to clearly demonstrate error in the trial court's findings. Id. The second part of the rule establishes a very strong burden for the appellant to overcome when the findings of the trial court are based primarily upon oral testimony. Id. The reason for this heavy burden is that the trial court had the opportunity to view the witnesses as they testified and to observe their demeanor before reaching its conclusions as to the witnesses' credibility. Id. The reviewing court does not have the same opportunity. As a result the appellate court must be "especially circumspect" in reviewing a trial court for clear error when there was conflicting evidence presented on issues of fact. Id. Therefore, this Court will not set aside the factual findings of the trial court as clearly erroneous unless the appellant demonstrates that one of three conditions exist.
One condition the appellant must show for reversal is that the factual finding of the trial
court was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. at 547, 1 CSR at 37. Another condition that allows for reversal is that the factual finding was the result of an erroneous conception of the applicable law. Id. at 547, 1 CSR at 37-38. Finally, the appellate court may reverse a trial court's finding of fact if after a consideration of the entire record the court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. at 547, 1 CSR at 38. If the appellant fails to met the burden as outlined then the reviewing court can only affirm.
Analysis
Counsel for appellant has failed to follow the rules of appellate procedure concerning the requirements for filing a brief. In fact, he has filed no brief but rather a list of the same arguments counsel made to the trial judge. He has not provided any citation in the record where the points he argues exist nor any place in the record where the trial court was in error. It is fairly clear to this Court that counsel for appellant is not qualified to handle cases in the Appellate Division of this Court. Nonetheless we have reviewed the record and we hold that the trial court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous under the standards set forth above.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the record and finding no error, we affirm the judgment.
* * * *