Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Palau

Salii v Etpison [2011] PWSC 22; Civil Appeal 028.2009 (31 January 2011)

IN THE UPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF PALAU
APPELLATE DIVISION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 09-028
Civil Action No. 07-182

BILUNG GLORIA G. SALII,
Appellant,

v.

SHALLUM ETPISON,
KEIZA ETPISON,
Appellees.

Decided: January 31, 2011

[1] Appeal and Error: Interlocutory Appeals

This court has long adhered to the premise that the proper time to consider appeals is after final judgment.

[2] Appeal and Error: Interlocutory Appeals

An order that does not settle the trial issues is generally not appealable.

[3] Appeal and Error: Interlocutory Appeals

A partial summary judgment ruling is not typically the type warranting immediate appeal.

Counsel for Appellant: Salvador Remoket
Counsel for Appellee: John K. Rechucher

BEFORE: LOURDES F. MATERNE, Associate Justice; ALEXANDRA F. FOSTER, Associate Justice; and RICHARD H. BENSON, Part-Time Associate Justice.

Appeal from the Trial Division, the Honorable ARTHUR NGIRAKLSONG, Chief Justice, presiding.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1. Appellant Bilung Gloria G. Salii appeals the Trial Divisions decision granting partial summary judgment to Appellees Shallum Etpison and Keizia Etpison. Because the Trial Divisions decision does not constitute a final judgment, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the parties raising these issues and referencing these briefs once judgment is final.

BACKGROUND

2. This dispute concerns whether Gloria G. Saliis fences encroached upon Shallum and Keizia Etpisons property. The three parties own four lots of land. Shallum owns the land called Tmasch, Cadastral Lot No. 040 B 02; Keizia owns the land called Metuker/Ngelngii, Cadastral Lot No. 040 B 20; and Saliis lineage, the Techeboet Lineage, owns two lots, Cadastral Lot No. 040 B 18 and Cadastral Lot No. B 19. Saliis lots are located in between Shallums lot (Tmasch) and Keizias lot (Metekuer/Ngelngii). Specifically, Saliis Cadastral Lot No. 040 B 18 shares a boundary with Shallums lot, and both of Saliis lots share a boundary with Keizias lot. (See Pl. Ex. 10A.)

3. Plaintiffs brought suit for trespass against Salii after Salii built concrete fences that allegedly encroached on their parcels of land and refused to move them. At trial, Plaintiffs submitted as evidence a survey of the common boundaries created by the Bureau of Lands and Survey. The survey was completed based on cadastral lot numbers of the four lots, and it included a map of the lots. (Pl. Ex. 10A.) The map showed that the fences encroached on Plaintiffs lots. In response, Salii introduced testimony of Roman Remoket, who held a position as Surveyor at the Bureau of Land and Surveys. During his testimony, Salii introduced a sketch of the lots that Remoket created. (Def. Ex. A.) According to Remokets sketch and testimony, the fences did not encroach upon either Plaintiffs lot because the official map of the Bureau of Land and Surveys has errors when compared to the actual land markers.

4. The Trial Division found the exhibit from the Bureau of Lands and Survey credible, and Remokets testimony and exhibit to lack probative value. Thus, the Trial Division granted Shallum and Keizias motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of trespass. The court reasoned that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the location of the fences, and it concluded, as a matter of law, that Saliis fences infringed upon Shallum and Keizias property. The Trial Division did not make a decision regarding punitive damages, consequential damages, and attorneys fees because they required factual findings, and the court stated that it would reach those decisions after a hearing or trial. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

5. The parties did not address this issue in their briefing, but we must address whether this case is properly before the Appellate Division. The Trial Divisions Decision expressly stated that it was not handling issues of punitive damages, compensatory damages, and attorneys fees until after the decision becomes final. Thus, the Trial Division acknowledged that its partial summary judgment decision was not final.

6. [1], [2] This Court has long adhered to the premise that the proper time to consider appeals is after final judgment. ROP v. Black Micro Corp., 7 ROP Intrm. 46, 47 (1998). An order which does not finally settle the issues on trial generally is not appealable, although it is open to review in connection with an appeal of the final judgment. In the Matter of Kaleb Udui, 3 ROP Intrm. 130, 131 (1992). Piecemeal appeals disrupt the trial process, extend the time required to litigate a case, and burden appellate courts. It is far better to consolidate all alleged trial court errors in one appeal. Ngirchechol v. Triple J. Enters., Inc., 11 ROP 58, 60 (2004). Most interlocutory matters therefore must therefore await final judgment for appeal. Emaudiong v. Arbedul, 5 ROP Intrm. 31, 34 (1994).

7. [3] Salii appeals a partial summary judgment ruling, which is not the type that requires immediate appeal. Airai State Pub. Lands Auth. v. Aimeliik State Govt, 11 ROP 39, 41 (2003) (noting that a partial summary judgment decision was not an appealable final judgment); Renguul v. Orak, 9 ROP 86 (2002) (dismissing appeal in an ejectment case where appellant sought review of the trial courts decision as to a portion of land appellee was using, reasoning that the decision was not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order). The Trial Divisions decision simply concluded that Saliis fences trespassed on Plaintiffs property. It did not order Salii to take down the fence, and it did not address damages. Thus, appellate review of this decision is inappropriate.

CONCLUSION

8. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant Bilung Gloria Salii's appeal is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED, this 31st day of January, 2011.

LOURDES F. MATERNE
Associate Justice

ALEXANDRA F. FOSTER
Associate Justice

RICHARD H. BENSON
Part-Time Associate Justice