USA Foreclosure Wiki

Diocese of Samoa Pago Pago v. K.M.S.T., Inc. (Am. Samoa High Ct. 1991)

3 min read

Diocese of Samoa Pago Pago v. K.M.S.T., Inc. (1991)

Citation: 18 Am. Samoa 2d 67 · Court: High Court of American Samoa · Decided: February 13, 1991

Source note (2026-10-18):

  • Links on this page to https://static.case.law/am-samoa-2d/18/cases/0067-01.json are an (unofficial Caselaw Access Project copy, retrieved before 2026-10-18; host disallows automated access); no official or otherwise permitted full-text copy was located on 2026-10-18.

Facts

The Diocese, a judgment creditor of K.M.S.T., levied execution on specific property of K.M.S.T., which was sold at a marshal’s sale. Two intervenors claimed the proceeds: Nelson & Robertson, under the same recorded blanket chattel mortgage rejected in shantilal-brothers-v-kmst-wholesale-1990, and Shantilal Brothers, a judgment creditor whose judgment was earlier but which had not levied on this property. Unlike Shantilal, the Diocese knew of the mortgage before it obtained its writ.

Holding

  1. Execution lien: “American Samoa has no statutory judgment lien”; a judgment creditor’s lien “attaches at the moment he gives his writ of execution, duly issued and describing specific property, to the marshal,” and “the one who first levies upon the property has priority, irregardless of the order in which the judgments were obtained” (A.S.C.A. § 43.1523).
  2. Actual knowledge: A.S.C.A. § 27.1510 (cited in the opinion by its former number, § 43.1510) makes defective or unrecorded mortgages invalid only against persons without actual knowledge. Actual knowledge substitutes for defects in recording, so a deficiently recorded mortgage would bind a creditor from the moment it learns of it. But a mortgage that describes no specific article is not a mortgage at all, and “no amount of knowledge that the deficient document exists can cure the deficiency.”
  3. The Diocese took the proceeds of the marshal’s sale; a stay of distribution was denied.

Practical impact

  • Note: the “not a mortgage at all” ruling on blanket descriptions predates the 2006 amendment of § 27.1510 (see Good-law status).
  • Buyers and creditors: priority among executions follows the order writs are delivered to the marshal, not judgment dates. A specific, properly filed chattel mortgage primes later executions; an unrecorded but specific mortgage binds anyone who learns of it before the writ is delivered.
  • Buyers at marshal’s sales: ask whether any creditor with actual knowledge of an item-specific unrecorded mortgage drove the sale — the mortgage may still bind the proceeds or the property.

Good-law status

Superseded in part by statute. A.S.C.A. § 27.1510 was amended in 2006 (PL 29-19). As retrieved 2026-10-17 (https://asbar.org/code-annotated/27-1510-validity-of-mortgage-bill-of-sale-etc/), it now requires a description “that reasonably identifies the security, whether specific or not,” permits description “by its listing, category, type, quantity and/or location,” and allows after-acquired property so described. The specific-description rule applied here therefore does not govern instruments under the amended statute; the rules on execution priority (first writ delivered to the marshal) under § 43.1523 and on actual knowledge substituting for recording defects remain consistent with the current text. No other negative treatment located; a citator check was not run (needs_verification). The asbar.org annotation to A.S.C.A. § 43.1523 (retrieved 2026-10-17, https://asbar.org/code-annotated/43-1523-priority-among-executions/) summarizes these holdings.

Applies in →

american-samoa · see equipment-and-machinery, court-ordered-administrative-and-creditor-sales

Sources

This page provides general legal information, not legal advice. Verify the holding and its current treatment against the primary source and consult a licensed American Samoa attorney before acting. Last verified: 2026-10-17.

Graph View

Backlinks