Cite as Palsis v. Talley, Kosrae St.(1992)

[Kos.Ct pge 1]




Rendered: January 23,1992


     Appellant Theresa Palsis through Counsel Canney Palsis appeals from the determinatian of K.osrae Mate Land Commission on Parcel Nos. 034-M-01 and 0134 -M02, known as Fintua located in Malem Municipality.

     Appellant appeals this determination end requests teal de nova.

     The issues presented before this Court to determine are:

     (1)      Whether or not determination at lend Commission was contrary to the weight of the evidence.

     (2)      Whether or not the determination was based can substantial evidence.

     (3)       Whether or not Land Commission in its deterttliitatirran failed to dive an opportunity to appellant to present her claim at the formal hearing.

[Kos.Ct pge 2]


     1.   The land involved was owned by Paul Ittu, appellant. s father and was customarily inherited by appellant Theresa SyIvin Palsis prior to Paul's death. This Court will not address the issue of prior ownership since it was undisputed as the fact reveal.

     2.  The history of the land is fairly clear. After Paul Ittu died, the property was custamarly inherited by appellant Theresa Sytvin Falsis. Appellee Alokoa Talley claims that he is adapted by appellant's natural mother.

     3.  Appellee claims the property based open the transfer made by Paul's wife, Srue after Paul died.

     4.  The formal hearing was held in Malem Municipality on June 16,1986. At the hearing both, Theresa Palsis appellant, and Alokoa Talley appellee, appeared with an agreed document. The document purported to be an agreement between them on the property. The document was written in local language and was signed by both parties.1

     5.   At the formal hearing said document was introduced to the panel LRT (Land Registration Team) chaired by deceased Mr. William.2  The contents of the document clearly transfered the interests and title to appellee and based open the document, the Land Registration Team accepted the document as evidence. Based upon the document, determination of ownership of the property Fintua issued to appellee Mr. Alokoa Talley.

     (6)   The document describes same fame of payment to be made. However, it does not specify the amount nor haw the payment should be made. Sometime after

[Kos.Ct pge 3]

the determination, appellant requested appelle to pay two thousand dollars(2,000.00). The amount requested was made after the determination of ownership was issued. Appellee advises appellant that he will assist all the needs of appellant; however , only after he had cleared his loan balance. He will assist her with cash, foods. clothings etc. during the rest of her life.

     It was not clear whether these forms of payment was accepted as part of the agreement.

     It is not clear whether appellee continues to live up with his obligation by rendering assistances to appellant. However, this Court will not address the issue since it is not relevant to the issues raised by appellant. Appellant in her trial brief attacker the transfer of the property can grounds and asserts that valid transfer never occured and that Lot Nos. 034 -M-01 and 034-M-02 still belongs to her:

     I can not find any merit in appellant contention.


     The fact that Lest Nos. 034-M-01 and 034-M-02 was originally owned by Paul Ittu was not disputed. The Land Commission made its finding based upon the transfer of property by appellant and at a formal hearing it was not contested. Appellant agrees to transfer the title to appellee on June 16, 1986.

     Based upon the documents both parties signed the formal hearing was terminated and determination of owemship was issued in favor of appellee accordingly.

     Appellant attacks the transfer and claims that appellee does not have the right of ownership until he made payments and other obligation to fullfil his promises. This is difficult to determine as to how and what promises made and how payment should be made to appellant to reflect their agreement.


[Kos.Ct pge 4]

     Appellant was given an apportunity to assert her claim at a formal hearing on June 16, 1986 in Malem Municipality. At the hearing, in the presence of appellee and numbers of Land Registration Team, she agreed to transfer the title of interest by signing the document.

     KC 11.611 provides in part

     . The Commission and a registration team consider any evidence which it detemine mays aid in reaching a ,dust decision .... a hearing is public and a person claiming an interests in the parcel has the opportunity to present his
     claim KC 11.611(emphasis added).

     The statutes provide various methods for enforcing rules arid regulations of
Land Commission or administrative agencies. The Land Commission must strictly adhere to tire standards, polices and limitations provided in the statute vesting power in them. Under the statutory provision KC 11.611 it is necessary that the Land Commission a Land Registration Team consider any evidences which it determine pray aid in reaching a dust and fair decision. There are certain requimrnents that must tie done before issuance of Determination of f Ownership.

     Appellant claims that the Land Commission never gave her any opportunity to testify and that their determination was contrary to the weight of the evidence at the hearing. I do not see how it is contrary. The only evidences at the hearing (formal) were Ex 1. and Ex II as stipulated. These are the basis of the (sand Commission determination of ownership.

     Based upon the above findings and opinion, I have concluded that the Land Commission finding is appropriate.

     This appeal is dismissed and trial de novo is denied.

[Kos.Ct pge 5]

     SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of January, 1992

                                   Harry H. Skilling
                                   Justice Pro Tempore

     Entered on this 27th day of January, 1992.


1. The authenticity of Exhibit 1 was stipulated by parties regarding the transfer of interests from appellant to appellee, (Back to Opinion)

2. Exhibit 2 is the stpulated, transcript and formal hearing. (Back to Opinion)