Case ID: am-samoa-2d_3/html/0112-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per MURPHY, J. :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FAGAIMA AFATIA and MAC MANUMA, Appellants v. FONOTI AUFATA, Appellee
    High Court of American Samoa Appellate Division
    AP. NO. 12-86
    November 24, 1986
    Before REES, Chief Justice, MURPHY, Associate Justice, KENNEDY, Acting Associate Justice, TAUANU'U, Chief Associate Judge, and A'AU, Associate Judge.
    Counsel: For the Appellant, Aviata Fa'alevao
    For the Appellee, Michael Kruse
    
      
       Honorable Anthony M. States Court of Appeals serving by designation of Interior. Kennedy, Judge, United for the Ninth Circuit, the Secretary of the*
    
   Per MURPHY, J. :

This case concerned a land dispute between the Fonoti family and the Fagaima family. The trial division of the High Court held for the Fonoti family. We affirm.

Appellant raises no legal issues but argues that the trial court decision was clearly erroneous In that it "just totally ignored testimonies of Chief Fagaima himself. . . 15 The Fagaima claim was also supported by testimony of Mac Manuma who has occupied a portion of the property with the permission of Fagaima.

The trial division is free to disbelieve the testimony of witnesses. In this case there was substantial reason to disbelieve both Fagaima Afatia and ‘Mac Manuma. Their self interest is obvious. Manuma, said the trial court, is selling off the land. Unless Fagaima wins this case he could be faced with considerable litigation or worse.

On the other hand, the trial court found the testimony in support of Fonoti both credible and logical. The conclusions drawn from the facts were clearly explained by the trial court. That appellant, simply disagrees with the trial court does not raise an appealable issue or entitle an appellate tribunal to substitute its findings (even if we were disposed to do so) for trial court findings amply supported by credible evidence.

The standards of appellate review were mentioned at the last session of the Appellate Division in Leomiti v. Pagofie (Mar. 12, 1980 Appellate No. 42-84. Counsel lor appellant would be well advised to read that decision.

Judgment AFFIRMED.