Kramers v. Bings, SCT 2021-01786 (01/17/23): The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision granting the Kramers’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that “there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the Kramers are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The Kramers purchased the Alap, Senior Dri Jerbal, and Dri Jerbal rights to the entirety of Bukien Weto, Ajeltake Islands, Majuro Atoll. They initially recorded their deeds in 2009 under the Real and Property Act, 24 MIRC Ch. 1 (repealed in 2003). Subsequently, the Kramers recorded their deeds in 2003 under the Land Recording and Registration Act 2003, 24 MIRC Ch. 4 (“LRA”). In 2020, the Bings filed a 1999 deed they had obtained for a portion of Bukien Weto. However, the Supreme Court concluded that “[i]t is abundantly clear that the Kramers’ deeds have priority over the “Bing deed” under the Real and Personal Property Act because they were (i) purchasers (ii) for valuable consideration who (iii) recorded first (iv) without notice of the Bing’s unrecorded oral agreement regarding Bukien weto.” The Bings’ 2020 LRA recording of their 1999 deed does not overcome the Kramers’ claim.
Samuels v. Langrines, SCT 2020-00960 (02/15/23): The Supreme Court dismissed Appellants’ appeal due to their failure to file a timely opening brief. Despite having obtained a stipulated order allowing an extension of time, the Appellants filed their opening brief six days late. Furthermore, Appellants’ brief was not accompanied by a motion allowing late filing and was not preceded by a second motion for enlargement of time. Based on the Appellants’ late filing, Appellee requested that the Supreme Court dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with Supreme Court Rule of Procedure (“SCRP”) 26(b). SCRP 26(b) requires a showing of “good cause” to excuse the late filing of a brief. Finding the Appellants failed to comply with Rule 26(b), the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal. Although the Supreme Court dismissed the Appellants’ appeal, it still addressed their claims regarding the lower courts’ admission of evidence from the Appellee. In this regard, the Supreme Court found that the Appellants had waived their objections by not raising them before the lower courts. Additionally, the Court found that the Appellants’ objections were not supported by the law, including the rules of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s and the Traditional Rights Court’s rulings. These rulings concluded that, among the parties, Appellee Adelma Libao Samuel is the holder of the Iroij Edrik and Alap rights and titles over Monkut Weto, Djarret Island, Majuro Atoll, and that Appellant Aldia Langrine Langinbelik is the holder of the Senior Dri Jerbal rights and title over Monkut Weto.
Edmund, et al. v. MIMRA, et al. (3), SCT 2021-00406 (02/17/23): The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s Judgment that the defendant Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (“MIMRA”) was liable to the plaintiffs for the wrongful death of Diavon Edmond. A nighttime maritime collision between a boat owned by MIMRA and a second boat owned by defendant Wotje Atoll Local Government (“WALGOV”) resulted in the death of a passenger, Diavon Edmond. Edmond’s surviving personal representatives brought a wrongful death action before the High Court, arguing that Edmond’s death was caused by the negligence of the boats’ pilots and owners. The High Court agreed, finding both MIMRA and WALGOV liable for damages. This was despite the defendants’ objection that they were exempt from liability due to the Government Liability Act of 1980 (“GLA”), 3 MIRC Ch. 10. On appeal, MIMRA challenged the High Court’s two key determinations: firstly, that MIMRA is not part of the ‘Government’ as defined in the GLA and thus not entitled to the liability limitations contained therein; secondly, that the GLA’s liability limitation is an affirmative defense which MIMRA waived. The Supreme Court held that MIMRA had waived the GLA’s liability limitation as an affirmative defense. Accordingly, it deemed it unnecessary to address the statutory interpretation of whether MIMRA was entitled to the GLA’s liability protections. For these reasons, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision.
Secretary of Finance v. Iosia v deBrum, SCT 2022-00814 (03/22/23): The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal because Appellant deBrum’s opening brief failed to substantially comply with Supreme Court Rules of Procedure (“SCRP”) 28. Appellant deBrum’s opening brief failed to clearly present the Supreme Court with the questions and points intended to be raised in this appeal; did not advise the court of the applicable standard of review; did not provide the court with a coherent argument as to why the lower courts erred; and provided the court with no authority supporting its contentions. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for Appellant deBrum’s failure to comply with the appellate rules, SCRP 28.
Social Security Administration v. Jorbon, dba Philippo and Jorbon, LLC, SCT 2022-02240 (05/04/23): The Supreme Court, sitting as a single justice, dismissed the Defendant-Appellant’s appeal for the following reasons. Firstly, the Defendant-Appellant did not comply with Supreme Court Rules of Procedure, Rule 28(b), which requires that the filing of an opening brief within 40 days of the record on appeal being filed. In this case, the Defendant-Appellant filed his opening brief eight days late. Secondly, the Defendant-Appellant failed to show“good cause” to justify the late filing, as required by Rule 26(b). Lastly, the Defendant-Appellant did not object to the Appellee’s motion to dismiss for noncompliance with Rule 28(b).
Sonya Tonyokwe & Rozena Tonyokwe for herself and on by have of Tybyn Samuel v. Erakdrik Samuel & Mudge Samuel, SCT 2022-00889 (06/21/23): Upon full-panel review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Supreme Court’s single justice order dated June 12, 2023. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant Samuel and Samuel’s appeal for failing to file their Opening Brief within 40 days of service of the Clerk of the Courts’ Notice of Filing the Record on Appeal as required by Supreme Court Rule of Procedure 28(b) and for failing to demonstrate “good cause” for their failure to timely file.
Republic of the Marshall Islands v. Lanes Muller, SCT 2022-01027 (07/11/23): On appeal, the Supreme Court in its July 11, 2023 Opinion affirmed the conviction of defendant Muller on both Count 1, Criminal Attempt to Commit Sexual Assault in the First Degree, and Count 2, Continuous Sexual Assault of a Minor. However, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Muller on Count 3, Showing a Pornographic Movie to a Child, for insufficient evidence, i.e., evidence of “threat to the development” of GL. Further, the Supreme Court vacated Muller’s sentence and remanded the case to the Court for re-sentencing anew on Counts 1 and 2.
Symphony Shipholding SA v Sea Justice Ltd, SCT 2022-01292 (08/02/23): On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens. This case concerns a 2021 allision between two ships off the coast of the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”). Plaintiff-Appellant Symphony Shipholding SA (“Symphony”), the owner of the damaged vessel, brought suit in the RMI High Court . Shortly thereafter, Defendant-Appellee Sea Justice Ltd. (“Sea Justice”), which is incorporated in the RMI, moved to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. The High Court granted the motion, reasoning that the case would be more appropriately resolved before a maritime court in the PRC, and then denied Symphony’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court affirmed. Further, the High Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case unconditionally, refusing to stay the case pending the outcome of the PRC litigation, or denying the motion for reconsideration. Precedent does not compel a different result.
2024
Republic of the Marshal Islands v. Lanes Muller, SCT 2023-01545 (06/04/24): The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision sentencing defendant Lanes Muller under Count 1, Sexual Assault of the First Degree, to 10 years’ imprisonment, and under Count 2, Continuous Sexual Assault of a Minor, to 25 years’ imprisonment with 20 years to serve and 5 years’ probation under conditions. The sentences for Count 1 and Count 2 were ordered to be served concurrently. Consistent with Section 6.06 of the Criminal Code of 2011, the High Court considered aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including the custom of the Marshall Islands. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court’s decision under the “abuse of discretion standard,” concluding there was not abuse of discretion.
Deo Jeffrey Gold v. Republic of the Marshal Islands, SCT 2021-01023 (06/04/24): The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision convicting the defendant Gold of Sexual Assault in the First Degree. Gold argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him, emphasizing the lack of medical evidence and eyewitnesses to the assault. He claimed the trial was a “he said, she said” scenario and that the jury was irrationally swayed by emotional testimony. The Court rejected these arguments, noting that the law does not require corroboration of the testimony victim, Anmontha. The evidence presented, including Anmontha’s testimony and eyewitness accounts of her distress, supported the conviction. The Court also found that the jury’s credibility determinations were not to be second-guessed. The Court reviews sufficiency of evidence by considering if any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing evidence in favor of the prosecution.
