Sivia v. Sinagege

High Court of American Samoa

Sivia v. Sinagege

26 Am. Samoa 2d 18

CourtHigh Court of American Samoa

DecidedApril 5, 1994

DocketAP No. 26-92; LT No. 45-90

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Am. Samoa 2d 18 (Sivia v. Sinagege) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering High Court of American Samoa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sivia v. Sinagege, 26 Am. Samoa 2d 18 (amsamoa 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHMOND, Justice:

On November 10, 1993, oral arguments were heard in the appeal of the October 28, 1993, decision of the trial court. This decision found that the land at issue belonged to appellee Urn family and enjoined appellants from further construction on that land.

In reviewing a decision of the Land and Titles Division or the Trial Division, the Appellate Division utilizes a "clear error" standard. A.S.C.A. § 43.0801(b); T.C.R.C.P. 52(a); see Moea'i v. Alai'a, 12 A.S.R.2d 91, 92 (App. Div. 1989); Tuileata Family v. Amituana'i, 8 A.S.R.2d 173, 175 (App. Div. 1988). This standard of review applies to the lower court's evaluation of witnesses' credibility. Moea`i, 12 A.S.R.2d at 92 (quoting T.C.R.C.P. 52(a)); National Pac. Ins. Co. v. Oto, 3 A.S.R.2d 94, 94-95 (App. Div. 1986). When conflicting testimony has been presented, "believ[ing] the witnesses favoring the appellee and disbelieving those favoring the appellant . . . is the prerogative of the trial court which saw and heard the witnesses." National Pac. Ins., 3 A.S.R.2d at 94.

Appellants' arguments essentially consisted of asserting thai their witnesses [20]*20and not appellees' witnesses should be believed, as well as claiming that landmarks and construction on the land supported their ownership claim. However, these arguments only dispute the trial court's evaluation of the evidence. Determining the credibility and weight of the evidence is the function of the trial court, and its findings were amply supported by the evidence. Therefore, the decision of the Land and Titles Division is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RICHMOND, Justice:

On November 10, 1993, oral arguments were heard in the appeal of the October 28, 1993, decision of the trial court. This decision found that the land at issue belonged to appellee Urn family and enjoined appellants from further construction on that land.

In reviewing a decision of the Land and Titles Division or the Trial Division, the Appellate Division utilizes a "clear error" standard. A.S.C.A. § 43.0801(b); T.C.R.C.P. 52(a); see Moea'i v. Alai'a, 12 A.S.R.2d 91, 92 (App. Div. 1989); Tuileata Family v. Amituana'i, 8 A.S.R.2d 173, 175 (App. Div. 1988). This standard of review applies to the lower court's evaluation of witnesses' credibility. Moea`i, 12 A.S.R.2d at 92 (quoting T.C.R.C.P. 52(a)); National Pac. Ins. Co. v. Oto, 3 A.S.R.2d 94, 94-95 (App. Div. 1986). When conflicting testimony has been presented, "believ[ing] the witnesses favoring the appellee and disbelieving those favoring the appellant . . . is the prerogative of the trial court which saw and heard the witnesses." National Pac. Ins., 3 A.S.R.2d at 94.

Appellants' arguments essentially consisted of asserting thai their witnesses [20]*20and not appellees' witnesses should be believed, as well as claiming that landmarks and construction on the land supported their ownership claim. However, these arguments only dispute the trial court's evaluation of the evidence. Determining the credibility and weight of the evidence is the function of the trial court, and its findings were amply supported by the evidence. Therefore, the decision of the Land and Titles Division is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Am. Samoa 2d 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sivia-v-sinagege-amsamoa-1994.