such issue sna sponte. 3 Estate of Imamura, P. Action No. 89-1009 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Feb. 17, 1995) (decision and order granting petition for partial distribution at 3). 4 Although not mentioned by the Superior Court or any of the parties in this action, the Superior Court had previously found § 2411 to be unconstitutional. Estate ofTudela, Civ. Action No. 86-884 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. May 22,1992) (Order at 8,9. and 10). rev’d on other grounds, 4 N.M.I. 1 (1993), appeal dismissed, No. 93-16486 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 1994). However, the constitutionality of § 2411 is not before us today. In Estate of Tudela, the court stated: In reality, section 2411 is an effort to amend the Constitution without following the proper procedure ... . In operation, 8 CMC § 2411 woul High Ct., Tr. Div. 1962) (<HOLDING>); Estate of Cabrera. 2 N.M.I. 195, 203-04
holding that trial court did not err in basing decision on local customary law rather than common law holding that trial court did not err in applying common law but noting that chamorro customary law also could have been applied holding that common law review of a licensing decision was sufficient holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment holding that trial court did not err