KOSRAE STATE COURT TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as Edwin v. Heirs of Mongkeya
12 FSM Intrm. 220 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2003)

[12 FSM Intrm. 220]

 
TONY EDWIN,
Plaintiff,
 
vs.
 
HEIRS OF KUN MONGKEYA,
and SKANNER PETER,
Defendants.
 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 34-99
 
ORDERS DENYING RECONSIDERATION;
GRANTING AN ORDER IN AID; PERMANENT INJUNCTION
 
Aliksa B. Aliksa
Associate Justice
 
Hearing: November 5, 2003
Decided: November 6, 2003

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff:                           Akiyusi Palsis, trial counselor
                                                     P.O. Box 224
                                                     Lelu, Kosrae FM 96944
 
For the Movant:                           Mathias Mongkeya, pro se
                                                     P.O. Box 301
                                                     Lelu, Kosrae FM 96944
 
For the Defendant:                     Skanner Peter, pro se
                                                     Tafunsak, Kosrae FM 96944

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Civil Procedure ) Parties; Constitutional Law ) Case or Dispute ) Standing
     When the deceased’s brother failed to provide the court with evidence of his representation of the deceased’s heirs in the matter, his appearance is accepted as a pro se representation of himself and his claimed interests, but when the brother is not an heir, he does not have standing to file a motion

[12 FSM Intrm. 221]

for reconsideration on his own behalf because he is not a party to the matter, and on this basis his motion will be denied. Edwin v. Heirs of Mongkeya, 12 FSM Intrm. 220, 222 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2003).

Judgments ) Relief from Judgment
     A motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) allows the court to consider a motion for relief from a final judgment for several listed reasons, but such a motion must be made within a reasonable time not more than one year after judgment was entered or taken. When the decision was entered nearly three years ago, the one year deadline in which to file a Rule 60(b) motion has long since expired and the motion is thus untimely and must also be rejected on that basis. Edwin v. Heirs of Mongkeya, 12 FSM Intrm. 220, 222 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2003).
 
Civil Procedure ) Injunctions; Debtors’ and Creditors’ Rights ) Orders in Aid of Judgment
     When a person has entered the plaintiff’s parcel on at least two occasions and harvested crops in violation of the court’s decision that the plaintiff is the fee simple owner of the parcel, an injunction will issue against that person and the defendants which prohibits further trespass and taking of crops from the parcel, and the defendants will be given a reasonable time to remove a local hut that they have constructed on parcel. Edwin v. Heirs of Mongkeya, 12 FSM Intrm. 220, 222 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2003).
 
Civil Procedure ) Injunctions; Contempt; Debtors’ and Creditors’ Rights ) Orders in Aid of Judgment
     Failure to comply with an order in aid of judgment and an injunction can be grounds for a contempt proceeding. Edwin v. Heirs of Mongkeya, 12 FSM Intrm. 220, 222 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2003).

* * * *

COURT’S OPINION

ALIKSA B. ALIKSA, Associate Justice:

     Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Order in Aid of Judgment on July 1, 2003. Plaintiff alleges that Mathias Mongkeya has violated this Court’s Memorandum of Decision and Judgment, entered on November 27, 2000, by entering and harvesting crops from parcel 004-T-08. Mathias Mongkeya, on behalf of Defendant Heirs of Kun Mongkeya, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment and Setting of New Trial also on July 1, 2003. Defendant Heirs of Kun Mongkeya claim that Skanner Peter was not properly appointed to represent the Heirs of Kun Mongkeya in this matter. Both Motions were heard on November 5, 2003 at 1:30 pm. Akiyusi Palsis appeared for the Plaintiff. Mathias Mongkeya appeared for Defendants Heirs of Kun Mongkeya. Skanner Peter was also present at the hearing. None of the Heirs of Kun Mongkeya appeared at the hearing.

     After the hearing, I denied Defendant Heirs of Kun Mongkeya’s Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment. I granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order in Aid of Judgment. This Order sets forth my reasoning.

1. Findings and Analysis

     On November 23, 2000, this Court entered its Memorandum of Decision and Judgment, in which the Plaintiff was found to be the fee simple owner of parcel 004-T-08, with complete authority to prevent interference with the use of his land. Kosrae Land Court records reflect that parcel 004-T-08 was later subdivided into parcels 004-T-34 and 004-T-35. Plaintiff held title to subdivided parcel 004-T-34. The Heirs of Sitchiro Mongkeya hold title to subdivided parcel 004-T-35. The Plaintiff then sold parcel 004-T-34 to Wilson Allun. On at least two occasions in 2003, Mathias Mongkeya entered parcel 004-T-34 and harvested crops. Plaintiff’s Motion followed.

[12 FSM Intrm. 222]

     Mathias Mongkeya appeared to represent the Heirs of Kun Mongkeya. The Court takes judicial notice that Mathias Mongkeya is a brother of Kun Mongkeya. Therefore, pursuant to Kosrae Land Court Rules of Procedure, Rule 9.E., Mathias Mongkeya is not an heir of Kun Mongkeya. Mathias Mongkeya failed to provide the Court with evidence of his representation of the Heirs of Kun Mongkeya in this matter. Accordingly, Mr. Mongkeya’s appearance at the hearing today is accepted as a pro se representation of himself and his claimed interests in parcel 004-T-34.

     Mathias Mongkeya is not an heir of Kun Mongkeya. Therefore, he does not have standing to file the Motion for Reconsideration on his own behalf, because Mathias Mongkeya is not a party to this matter. On this basis the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment is denied.

      Even assuming that Mathias Mongkeya properly represents the Heirs of Kun Mongkeya, their Motion for Reconsideration and Setting of New Trial is untimely. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment and Setting of New Trial is accepted as a Motion for Relief from Judgment under KRCP Rule 60. Rule 60(b) does allow the Court to consider a motion for relief from a final judgment for several listed reasons. However, under Rule 60(b), such a motion must be made within a reasonable time, but not more than one year after judgment was entered or taken. Here the Memorandum of Decision was entered on November 27, 2000, nearly three years ago. The one year deadline in which to file a Rule 60(b) motion has long since expired. Under the KRCP Rule 60, Defendant’s Motion is untimely and must also be rejected on that basis.

      Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order in Aid of Judgment was considered next. Mathias Mongkeya had entered parcel 004-T-34 on at least two occasions in 2003 and harvested crops. This action is in violation of this Court’s Memorandum of Decision and Judgment, which finds the Plaintiff to be the fee simple owner of the parcel. Plaintiff’s Motion shall be granted and an injunction shall issue against Mathias Mongkeya and the Defendants which prohibits further trespass and taking of crops from parcel 004-T-34. Defendants shall be given a reasonable time to remove a local hut that they have constructed on parcel 004-T-34.

2. Conclusion

      Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment and Setting of New Trial is denied. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order in Aid of Judgment is granted. A permanent injunction is hereby issued against Mathias Mongkeya, Skanner Peter and the Heirs of Kun Mongkeya. Mathias Mongkeya, Skanner Peter and the Heirs of Kun Mongkeya are prohibited from entering parcel 004-T-34 and/or taking any crops or other resources from parcel 004-T-34, except that the Heirs of Kun Mongkeya may enter parcel 004-T-34 and remove the local hut that they placed on parcel 004-T-34. The removal of the local hut shall be completed no later than December 5, 2003. Any failure to comply with this Order and Injunction shall be grounds for a contempt proceeding.

* * * *