7 FSM Intrm. 294-295

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

Cite as Mailo v. Atonesia ,

7 FSM Intrm. 294 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1995)

[7 FSM Intrm. 294]

MARK MAILO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ETOMARA ATONESIA,

Defendant.

CA NO. 73-92

FINDINGS OF FACT,

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGEMENT

Wanis R. Simina

Associate Justice

Decided: October 5, 1995

* * * *

HEADNOTE

Property ) Tidelands

An owner of dry land that erodes has no legal basis to claim ownership of tideland. Mailo v. Atonesia, 7 FSM Intrm. 294, 295 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1995).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

WANIS R. SIMINA, Associate Justice:

This case was tried before the Honorable John Petewon, Associate Justice and taken under advisement prior to his resignation from the bench. No decision had been rendered by the former justice at the time of his resignation. The parties stipulated that this case could be reassigned to another justice and decided on the transcript of the trial and the other pleadings and papers on file herein. Therefore pursuant to this stipulation the court was assigned this matter and has reviewed the transcript of the trial and all the papers and pleading on file in this action. After reviewing the matter, the court finds that the only issue in this case is the ownership of the tideland known as Foupun

[7 FSM Intrm. 295]

located adjacent to Nepukos village in Weno, Municipality. Based on its review, the court makes the following findings of fact on the single issue before the court.

Findings of Fact

The tideland Foupun is adjacent to the dry land known as Winipat in the village of Nepukos, Weno Municipality. The court finds that the northern boundary of the tideland starts from the coconut tree that is at the southern part of the ASA store concrete parking lot next to the main road near the boundary between ASA and J&B Enterprises. The northern boundary goes in a westerly direction to a limestone rock known as Fouchimwechim and from there to the edge of the reef. The eastern boundary is formed by the shoreline adjacent to the dry land Winipat. The southern boundary is the fill land on the west side of the main road were the plaintiff's house is now located. The western boundary is the face of the reef between the northern and southern boundaries. See court sketch in file.

The court finds that historically this tideland belonged to the Soupunpi clan and was most recently owned by Kimono M. Paul and Neikun M. Isikar. These ladies sold the tideland in question to Maku Mailo, the plaintiff's father. The court finds that the plaintiff inherited the tideland from his father.

The court finds that the defendant's claim that his dry land (Neoram) has eroded and extends to Foupun totally unsupported by the evidence.

Accordingly, the court upon these findings concludes as follows.

Conclusions of Law

The court concludes that the plaintiff is the owner of the tideland known as Foupun which is located adjacent to the dry land Winipat in Nepukos village, Weno Municipality as more particularly described in the findings of fact. The court further concludes that the defendant has no interest in the tideland Foupun. The court further concludes that there is no legal basis for defendant's claim to ownership of a part of Foupun as a result of erosion of his dry land Neoram.

Therefore pursuant to the court's findings and conclusions judgment is awarded as follows.

Judgment

It is hereby

Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the plaintiff, Mark Mailo, is the owner of the tideland Foupun located adjacent to the dry land Winipat in the village of Nepukos, Weno Municipality, Chuuk State as described in the court's findings of fact, and that the defendant owns no part of that tideland, and it is further

Ordered that each party is to bear its own costs.

* * * *


	THE SUPREME COURT OF THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA Cite as Mailo v. Atonesia , 7 FSM Intrm. 294 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1995) [7 FSM Intrm. 294] MARK MAILO, Plaintiff, vs. ETOMARA ATONESIA, Defendant. CA NO. 73-92 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGEMENT Wanis R. Simina Associate Justice Decided: October 5, 1995 * * * * HEADNOTE Property ) Tidelands An owner of dry land that erodes has no legal basis to claim ownership of tideland. Mailo v. Atonesia, 7 FSM Intrm. 294, 295 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1995). * * * * COURT'S OPINION WANIS R. SIMINA, Associate Justice: This case was tried before the Honorable John Petewon, Associate Justice and taken under advisement prior to his resignation from the bench. No decision had been rendered by the former justice at the time of his resignation. The parties stipulated that this case could be reassigned to another justice and decided on the transcript of the trial and the other pleadings and papers on file herein. Therefore pursuant to this stipulation the court was assigned this matter and has reviewed the transcript of the trial and all the papers and pleading on file in this action. After reviewing the matter, the court finds that the only issue in this case is the ownership of the tideland known as Foupun [7 FSM Intrm. 295] located adjacent to Nepukos village in Weno, Municipality. Based on its review, the court makes the following findings of fact on the single issue before the court. Findings of Fact The tideland Foupun is adjacent to the dry land known as Winipat in the village of Nepukos, Weno Municipality. The court finds that the northern boundary of the tideland starts from the coconut tree that is at the southern part of the ASA store concrete parking lot next to the main road near the boundary between ASA and J&B Enterprises. The northern boundary goes in a westerly direction to a limestone rock known as Fouchimwechim and from there to the edge of the reef. The eastern boundary is formed by the shoreline adjacent to the dry land Winipat. The southern boundary is the fill land on the west side of the main road were the plaintiff's house is now located. The western boundary is the face of the reef between the northern and southern boundaries. See court sketch in file. The court finds that historically this tideland belonged to the Soupunpi clan and was most recently owned by Kimono M. Paul and Neikun M. Isikar. These ladies sold the tideland in question to Maku Mailo, the plaintiff's father. The court finds that the plaintiff inherited the tideland from his father. The court finds that the defendant's claim that his dry land (Neoram) has eroded and extends to Foupun totally unsupported by the evidence. Accordingly, the court upon these findings concludes as follows. Conclusions of Law The court concludes that the plaintiff is the owner of the tideland known as Foupun which is located adjacent to the dry land Winipat in Nepukos village, Weno Municipality as more particularly described in the findings of fact. The court further concludes that the defendant has no interest in the tideland Foupun. The court further concludes that there is no legal basis for defendant's claim to ownership of a part of Foupun as a result of erosion of his dry land Neoram. Therefore pursuant to the court's findings and conclusions judgment is awarded as follows. Judgment It is hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the plaintiff, Mark Mailo, is the owner of the tideland Foupun located adjacent to the dry land Winipat in the village of Nepukos, Weno Municipality, Chuuk State as described in the court's findings of fact, and that the defendant owns no part of that tideland, and it is further Ordered that each party is to bear its own costs. * * * *