Republic of the Marshall Islands Law Reports Volume 3
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS LAW REPORTS VOLUME 3 Opinions and Selected Orders 2005 through 2014 Published by: Carl B. Ingram Chief Justice, High Court P.O. Box B Majuro, MH 96960, Marshall Islands Tel. 692-625-3201/3297; Fax 692-625-3323 Email: [email protected] February 3, 2015 CITE THIS VOLUME 3 MILR _____ TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents. i Publisher’s 2007 Note and 2015 Note to the Marshall Islands Law Reports Interim Vol. 3. ii Table of Cases.. iii i Publisher’s 2007 Note to the Marshall Islands Law Reports Vol. 3 This collection of Marshall Islands Supreme Court decisions for 2005 through 2007 makes up the third volume of the Marshall Islands Law Reports. The first two volumes covered periods of about 12 and 11 years. It is the undersigned’s intention to close this volume after 10 years with the 2014 cases. Until 2014, the High Court will publish updates of Volume 3 from time-to-time. My thanks goes to Law Clerk Arsima Muller for her assistance with headnotes, summaries, and proof-reading decisions from 2005 through mid 2007. Carl B. Ingram Chief Justice, High Court Publisher’s 2015 Note to the Marshall Islands Law Reports Vol. 3 This collection of Marshall Islands Supreme Court decisions for 2005 through 2014 makes up the third volume of the Marshall Islands Law Reports. The first two volumes covered periods of about 12 and 11 years. The undersigned will start on a fourth volume with 2015 cases. Again my thanks goes to then Law Clerk Arsima Muller for her assistance with headnotes, summaries, and proof-reading decisions from 2005 through mid 2007. My thanks also to Associate Justice Dinsmore Tuttle for her assistance with headnotes, summaries, and proof-reading for decisions from late 2007 through 2014. Carl B. Ingram Chief Justice, High Court ii TABLE OF CASES 1. Tibon v. Jihu, et al., (Apr 5, 2005) S.Ct. Civil No. 03-01 (High Ct. Civil Nos. 2001-218 and 2002-63 (consolidated)). 1 2. Bujen and Wase v. RMI (Apr 5, 2005) S.Ct. Civil No. 04-01 (High Ct. Civil No. 2003-172). 8 3. Alik v. PSC (May 24, 2006) S.Ct. Civil No. 94-06 (High Ct. Civil No. 1989-414). 13 4. RMI v. Lemark (Jun 14, 2006) S.Ct. Crim. No. 04-03 (High Ct. Crim. No. 2004-034). 19 5. Ueno v. Hosia, et al. (May 17, 2007) S.Ct. Civil No. 05-04 (High Ct. Civil No. 2005-077). 29 6. Pacific Basin, Inc., v. Mama Store/Litokwa Tomeing (May 17, 2007) S.Ct. Civil No. 94-01 (High Ct. Civil No. 1992-007). 34 7. Nuka v. Morelik, et al. (Nov 13, 2007) S.Ct. Civil No. 06-08 (High Ct. Civil No. 2005-078). 39 8. RMI v. Kijiner (Dec 8, 2007) S.Ct. Case No. 07-08 (High Ct. Crime No. 2005-046). 43 9. Fu v. RMI (Jun 2, 2008) S.Ct. Crim. No. 08-04 (High Ct. Crim. No. 2006-098). 47 10. RMI v. Elanzo (Jun 5, 2008) S.Ct. Case No. 06-09 (High Ct. Crim No. 2006-021). 51 11. Kramer and PII v. Are and Are (Jul 15, 2008) S.Ct. Civil No. 07-02 (High Ct. Civil No. 2006-048). 56 12. Thomas, et al., v. Samson v. Alik (Jul 24, 2008) S.Ct. Civil No. 07-01 (High Ct. Civil No. 2005-077). 71 13. Kelet, et al., v. Lanik & Bien (Aug 8, 2007) S.Ct. Civil No. 05-03 (High Ct. Crime No. 2005-046). 76 14. Nashion and Sheldon v. Enos and Jacklick (Aug 25, 2008) iii S.Ct. Case No. 06-11 (High Ct. Crim. No. 2003-197).. 83 15. Kayser-Schillegger v. Ingam, et al. (Dec 30, 2008) S.Ct. Civil No. 09-01 (High Ct. Civil Nos. 2008-016 & 2008-017). 92 16. Bulele v. Morelik, et al., (Feb 13, 2009) S.Ct. Civil No. 06-08 (High Ct. Civil No. 2005-078). 96 17. Jally v. Mojilong (Mar 10, 2009) S.Ct. Civil No. 07-05 (High Ct. Civil No. 2003-141). 106 18. In the Matter of the Vacancy of the Mayoral Seat (Sep 16, 2009) S.Ct. Case No. 08-08 (High Ct. Civil No. 2005-046). 114 19. RMI v. Kijiner (Aug 2, 2010) S.Ct. Case No. 07-08 (High Ct. Crim. No. 2005-046).. 122 20. Dribo v. Bondrik, et al. (Sep 14, 2010) S.Ct. Civil No. 08-09 (High Ct. Civil No. 2003-067). 127 21. Rosenquist v. Econonmou, et al., (Oct 5, 2011) S.Ct. Civil No. 10-02 (High Ct. Civil No. 2009-056). 144 22. Lekka v. Kabua, et al. (Jul 24, 2013) S.Ct. Civil No. 06-10 (High Ct. Civil No. 2003-162). 167 23. Matthew, et al. v. CEO (Oct 7, 2014) S.Ct. Civil No. 12-04 (High Ct. Civil No. 2011-224). 174 iv IN THE SUPREME COURT REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS EJLA TIBON, S.CT. CIVIL NO. 03-01 (High Ct. Civil Nos. 2001-218 and Plaintiff-Appellee, 2002-063 (consolidated)) -v- MONEN JIHU, TELLA JIHU, and LIONRAK GEORGE, Defendants-Appellants. and MONEN JIHU and TELLA JIHU, Plaintiffs-Appellants, -v- LININMETO ALIK and LIONRAK GEORGE, Defendants-Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT APRIL 5, 2005 CADRA, C.J. GOODWIN, A.J. pro tem1, and KURREN, A.J. pro tem2 1Honorable Alfred T. Goodwin, Senior Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation of the Cabinet. 2Honorable Barry M. Kurren, Magistrate Judge, District of Hawaii, sitting by designation of the Cabinet. 1 MARSHALL ISLANDS, SUPREME COURT Argued and Submitted March 23, 2005 SUMMARY: This was a dispute over the alap and dri jerbal rights and titles to Uninak, Wojajokar, Lornien, and Lobat wetos on Eneko Island, Majuro Atoll (also known as “Jitaken Wetos”). Appellants claimed that a written will or kalimur transferring the interests to these wetos to an adopted son was invalid under Marshallese custom because bwij consent had not been obtained. Appellants, who were grandchildren of the testator, also claimed that the kalimur did not comply with the requirements for a holographic will under Title 25 of the MIRC (the Probate Code), and that the kalimur wrongfully disinherited them. After hearing the evidence, the Traditional Rights Court determined that the Jitaken Wetos were not bwij lands, but had been given as kitre. Because these lands were given as kitre, bwij consent was not necessary. The Traditional Rights Court, therefore, found that the kalimur was valid under custom. The High Court held that this finding was not “clearly erroneous,” and entered judgment consistent with this finding. The Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court also determined that appellants’ argument that the kalimur was not a valid holographic will was without merit because it was in writing, signed by the testator and witnessed. DIGEST: 1. CUSTOM – Burden of Proof: It is axiomatic that a party relying on a rule of custom has the burden of proving its existence and substance at trial. Zaion v. Peter, 1 MILR (Rev.) 228, 232 (1991). 2. APPEAL AND ERROR – Questions Reviewable – Asserted Below: It is well settled in this jurisdiction, as elsewhere, that issues or questions not raised or asserted in the court below are waived on appeal. Jeja v. Lajikam, 1 MILR (Rev.) 200, 205 (1990). 3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Construction – Article VI: It is well settled that it is the High Court’s duty to review the decision of the Traditional Rights Court and to adopt that decision unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Abija v. Bwijmaron, 2 MILR 6, 15 (1994). 4. APPEAL AND ERROR – Review – Discretionary Matters – Findings of Facts: A finding of fact as to the custom is to be reversed or modified only if clearly erroneous. Zaion, 1 MILR (Rev.) 233; Lobo v. Jejo, 1 MILR (Rev.) 224, 225-226 (1991). 5. APPEAL AND ERROR – Review – Discretionary Matters – Findings of Fact – Clearly Erroneous: A finding of fact is “clearly erroneous” when a review of the entire record produces 2 TIBON v. JIHU, et al. “a definite and firm conviction that the court below made a mistake.” Zaion, 1 MILR (Rev.) 233. OPINION OF THE COURT BY CADRA, C.J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court declaring that Ejla Tibon holds the Alap and dri jerbal rights and titles to Uninak, Wojajokar, Lornien, and Lobat wetos on Eneko Island, Majuro Atoll (also known as the “Jitaken Wetos”). In reaching its judgment, the High Court adopted, in its entirety, the opinion of the Traditional Rights Court which found that a written will or kalimur by Bilimon Bowod transferring these interests to his adopted son, appellee Ejla Tibon, was valid under Marshallese custom. Appellants Monen and Tella Jihu, the grandchildren of Bilimon, appeal contending that the will or kalimur is contrary to Marshallese custom, that the will does not comply with the requirements for a valid holographic will under Title 25 of the MIRC (the Probate Code), and that the will or kalimur wrongfully disinherits appellants. As discussed below, we conclude that the findings of the Traditional Rights Court are not “clearly erroneous” and, therefore, affirm the High Court’s judgment. I. On September 27, 2001, plaintiff-appellants Monen Jihu and Tella Jihu (the Jihus) filed Civil Case No. 2001-218 against defendants Lininmeto Alik and Lionrak George. In their Complaint, the Jihus alleged that, as the rightful successors of Bilimon Bowod, they were the proper persons to hold the Alap and dri jerbal rights, respectively, to the “Jitaken Wetos.” Lininmeto and Lionrak filed an Answer generally denying the Jihu’s claims and seeking a determination that they were the proper persons to hold the Alap and dri jerbal rights, respectively, to these four wetos.