KOSRAE STATE COURT TRIAL DIVISION

Cite as Sigrah v. Heirs of Nena, 13 FSM Intrm. 280 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2005).

[13 FSM Intrm. 280]

WIGGIN SIGRAH, Individually as an

Heir of Joseph Nelson,

Appellant,

vs.

HEIRS OF PALIKNOA NENA,

and ILAI D. ABRAHAM,

Appellees.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 105-03

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Yosiwo P. George

Chief Justice

Decided: June 16, 2005

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:   Wiggin Sigrah, pro se

                                     Lelu, Kosrae   FM   96944

For the Appellees:   Snyder H. Simon, trial counselor

                                      P.O. Box 1017

                                      Lelu, Kosrae  FM  96944

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Appellate Review ) Rehearing

     After an appellate court has issued its opinion, it may grant a motion for reconsideration it if has overlooked or misapprehended points of law or fact. Ordinarily such motions are summarily denied. A motion for reconsiderationís summary denial is proper when the court has neither overlooked nor misapprehended any points of law or fact. Sigrah v. Heirs of Nena, 13 FSM Intrm. 280, 281 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2005).

Appellate Review ) Rehearing

     When the points of law and fact referred to in a motion for reconsideration were not overlooked or misapprehended in the appealís previous consideration, the motion for rehearing will be denied. Sigrah v. Heirs of Nena, 13 FSM Intrm. 280, 281 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2005).

[13 FSM Intrm. 281]

* * * *

COURTíS OPINION

YOSIWO P. GEORGE, Chief Justice:

     On April 28, 2005, Appellant, Individually as an Heir of Joseph Nelson, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Courtís Memorandum of Decision entered on April 13, 2005 [Sigrah v. Heirs of Nena, 13 FSM Intrm. 192 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2005)]. In his Motion, Appellant argues that this Court committed manifest error by failing to conclude that the Land Courtís decision on appeal was clearly erroneous. Appellant relies upon his previous argument that the Land Court failed to properly consider the "agreed sketch" and masterís report, part of the record in Civil Action No. 305 (T.T.H.C. 1969). Appellant also relies upon his previous argument that the upper land at Fwinef, formerly designated as Japanese Lot # 292, was improperly partitioned into two, and then later into three parcels.

     After an appellate court has issued its opinion, it may grant a motion for reconsideration it if has overlooked or misapprehended points of law or fact. Ordinarily such motions are summarily denied. Nena v. Kosrae (II), 6 FSM Intrm. 564 (App. 1994). Summary denial of a motion for reconsideration is proper when the court has neither overlooked nor misapprehended any points of law or fact. Nahnken of Nett v. United States, 7 FSM Intrm. 612 (App. 1996).

     This Court has carefully considered the Appellantís arguments in his Motion and has carefully reviewed its Memorandum of Decision and the record on appeal. Following such careful consideration and review, this Court concludes that it has not overlooked or misapprehended the points of law and fact which were raised by the Appellant. Where the points of law and fact referred to in the Motion for Reconsideration were not overlooked or misapprehended in the previous consideration of the appeal, the Motion for Rehearing will be denied. Carlos v. FSM, 4 FSM Intrm. 32 (App. 1989). Accordingly, Appellantís Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

* * * *