Case Title: STATE EX REL THREE IRONS v THREE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 80-108 I N T H E SURPEME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1980 STATE O F M O N T A N A , ex rel., EARLENE THREE IRONS, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, -vs- DEAN CURTIS THREE IRONS, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Big Horn, The Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: D. Michael Eakin, Montana Legal S e r v i c e s , argued, Hardin, Montana Steve Bunch argued, Montana Legal S e r v i c e s , Helena, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana James Seykora, County Attorney, Hardin, Montana Deirdra Boggs argued, Missoula, Montana For Amicus Curiae: Michael G. G a r r i t y , Dept. of Revenue, Helena, Montana Lynaugh, F i t z g e r a l d , Schoppert & Skaggs, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: September 1 5 , 1980 Decided : 1 3 1 % ; Mr. J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s is an appeal from an o r d e r e n t e r e d by t h e Big Horn D i s t r i c t C o u r t u n d e r M o n t a n a ' s Uniform R e c i p r o c a l Enforcement of Support Act, s e c t i o n 40-5-101, e t seq., MCA, d i r e c t i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t , Dean C u r t i s s Three I r o n s t o make c h i l d s u p p o r t payments. Because t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t have p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over Three I r o n s or s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e t r a n s a c t i o n , we r e v e r s e . Dean C u r t i s s Three I r o n s is an e n r o l l e d member of t h e Crow I n d i a n T r i b e and l i v e s on t h e Crow R e s e r v a t i o n . H e is m a r r i e d t o b u t s e p a r a t e d from E a r l e n e T h r e e I r o n s , a Shoshone I n d i a n from t h e Wind River I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n i n Wyoming. They have two c h i l d r e n , Tanya J. and Dean, J r . The Three I r o n s were married September 16, 1974, i n Denver, Colorado. During t h e i r m a r r i a g e , t h e y r e s i d e d t h e r e and on t h e Crow R e s e r v a t i o n . E a r l e n e Three I r o n s h a s r e s i d e d i n Denver w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n s i n c e her s e p a r a t i o n from her husband i n 1975. I n November 1975, w h i l e a r e s i d e n t of Colorado, E a r l e n e Three I r o n s f i l e d a p e t i t i o n under Colorado's URESA which was forwarded t o Montana f o r enforcement proceedings. The Big Horn County D i s t r i c t Court i s s u e d an o r d e r t o show cause. Dean Three I r o n s was served w i t h c o p i e s of t h e o r d e r and t h e p e t i t i o n w i t h i n t h e boundaries of t h e Crow I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n . Appearing s p e c i a l l y through c o u n s e l , Three I r o n s moved t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k of p e r s o n a l and s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . The lower c o u r t denied t h e motion and o r d e r e d Three I r o n s t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t . On a p p e a l , t h e primary i s s u e s a r e whether t h e s t a t e c o u r t h a s p e r s o n a l and s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . These i s s u e s a r e d i s p o s i t i v e of t h e a p p e a l and we need n o t c o n s i d e r t h e o t h e r i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r review. T h i s appeal is governed by our h o l d i n g i n S t a t e ex r e l . Flammond v. Flammond (No. 80-12, Decided December I?, 1 9 8 0 ) . A l l of t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s o f f - r e s e r v a t i o n c o n t a c t s a r e w i t h t h e S t a t e of Colorado. None a r e with Montana. A s i n Flammond, s u p r a , t h e s t a t e c o u r t had n e i t h e r s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e t r a n s a c t i o n n o r -- i n p e r s o n a m -- j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e husband. Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e o n l y remedy open t o t h e w i f e is t o b r i n g an a p p r o p r i a t e enforcement of s u p p o r t proceeding i n t r i b a l c o u r t . Although t h e Crow T r i b e h a s n o t adopted URESA, its law and o r d e r code p r o v i d e s a l t e r n a t e remedies. The o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court is vacated and t h e cause is dismissed f o r l a c k of p e r s o n a l and s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . W e Concur: - - - ....................... \ C w f J u s t i c e J u s t i c e s %- Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison dissenting: I dissent. See my dissent in State ex rel. Flammond v. Flammond (1980), Mont. f - P. 2d (No. 80-12, decided December 19r 1980).