Title: MARRIAGE OF LIMPY

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 81-107 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RAYMOND S. LIMPY, Petitioner and Respondent, and JUDITH ROSE LIMPY, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Big Horn. Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: D. Michael Eakin argued, Legal Services, Miles City, Montana Steven Bunch argued, Legal Services, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Clarence T. Belue argued, Hardin, Montana Submitted: September 15, 1981 Decided: November 12, 1981 Filed: o v 1 ? 1981 % 9. Clerk M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s case is whether a s t a t e District Court i n Montana h a s s u b j e c t matter and p e r s o n a l j u r i s - d i c t i o n o v e r a m a r r i a g e d i s s o l u t i o n a c t i o n i n which both p a r e n t s and t h e minor c h i l d are e n r o l l e d members of t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne T r i b e r e s i d i n g on t h e Northern Cheyenne I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n . The District Court h e l d it had j u r i s d i c t i o n . W e r e v e r s e . J u d i t h Rose Limpy and Raymond Limpy are e n r o l l e d members o f t h e Northern Cheyenne ~ r i b e . They were married on ~ p r i l 1 5 , 1980, i n Hardin, Montana, which is l o c a t e d o u t s i d e t h e e x t e r i o r b o u n d a r i e s of t h e Northern Cheyenne I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n . The minor c h i l d of t h e p a r t i e s , Robbie Ray Limpy, and h i s p a r e n t s a l l r e s i d e w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r b o u n d a r i e s of t h e R e s e r v a t i o n . On September 1 0 , 1980, Raymond ~ i m p y f i l e d a p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e m a r r i a g e and c u s t o d y of t h e minor c h i l d i n t h e District Court of Big Horn County. J u d i t h Rose Limpy w a s s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s w i t h i n t h e R e s e r v a t i o n and signed a n acknowledgement of s e r v i c e . The case came on for t r i a l on October 28 and t h e r e a f t e r t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d a home s t u d y made by a s o c i a l worker of Rosebud County, Montana, who recommended b o t h p a r e n t s as f i t and p r o p e r c u s t o d i a n s of t h e minor c h i l d . Custody o f t h e minor c h i l d was awarded to Raymond Limpy by a d e c r e e of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , d a t e d March 2, 1981. J u d i t h Rose Limpy f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal from t h e District C o u r t ' s d e c r e e r a i s i n g t h e s o l e i s s u e of s u b j e c t matter and p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e s t a t e D i s t r i c t Court. A p p e l l a n t w i f e c o n t e n d s t h a t under t h e t h r e e - p a r t t e s t of S t a t e ex rel. I r o n Bear v. District Court ( 1 9 7 3 ) r 162 Mont. 335, 512 P.2d 1292, t h e S t a t e may n o t e x e r c i s e s u b j e c t matter j u r i s - d i c t i o n o v e r domestic r e l a t i o n s cases i n v o l v i n g T r i b a l members r e s i d i n g on t h e R e s e r v a t i o n because (1) c o n t r o l of domestic rela- t i o n s is an a s p e c t of s o v e r e i g n t y n o t withdrawn by t r e a t y or s t a t u t e , and ( 2 ) e x e r c i s e of S t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r domestic r e l a t i o n s of R e s e r v a t i o n r e s i d e n t s is an i n t e r f e r e n c e with T r i b a l self-government. The T r i b a l C o u r t h a s e x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n i n l i k e cases i n such a manner as to preempt S t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n . A p p e l l a n t w i f e a l s o m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e of absten- t i o n should be followed i n domestic r e l a t i o n s c a s e s and t h a t t h i s Court should d e f e r to t h e a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n of t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne A p p e l l a t e Court i n Wolfblack v. Wolfblack i s s u e d June 7 , 1979, because it is t h e Northern Cheyenne A p p e l l a t e C o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of T r i b a l law. A p p e l l a n t w i f e a l s o m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e S t a t e D i s t r i c t Court lacked i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r h e r and t h e minor c h i l d because t h e n e c e s s a r y minimum c o n t a c t s were n o t p r e s e n t . Respondent husband, on t h e o t h e r hand, a r g u e s t h a t o u r d e c i s i o n i n Bad Horse v. Bad Horse ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 3 Mont. 445, 517 p.2d 893, h o l d i n g t h a t t h e S t a t e c o u r t had s u b j e c t matter j u r i s - d i c t i o n is d i s p o s i t i v e of t h i s case. H e a r g u e s t h a t t h e o n l y f a c t d i s t i n g u i s h i n g t h i s case from -- Bad Horse is t h e s u b s e q u e n t a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n of t h e Northern Cheyenne A p p e l l a t e Court which h e a r g u e s should n o t be followed because t h e T r i b a l Court h a s usurped l e g i s l a t i v e powers r e s e r v e d to t h e T r i b a l Council by t h e Northern Cheyenne C o n s t i t u t i o n . By way of background t o our d i s c u s s i o n a summary of t h e a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n of t h e Northern Cheyenne Court is n e c e s s a r y . A d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e a c t i o n was i n i t i a t e d by Oran Wolfblack i n t h e Rosebud County ~ i s t r i c t Court i n 1979. Josephine Wolfblack t h e n . f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e i n t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne T r i b a l C o u r t . She appeared i n t h e S t a t e District Court and moved t o d i s m i s s t h a t a c t i o n f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n . The S t a t e D i s t r i c t Court c e r t i f i e d t h e following q u e s t i o n to t h e Northern Cheyenne A p p e l l a t e Court : "Do Montana D i s t r i c t Courts have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r members of t h e Northern Cheyenne T r i b e , r e s i d i n g w i t h i n t h e boundaries of t h a t r e s e r v a t i o n , i n a c t i o n s t o d i s s o l v e marriages?" The T r i b a l C o u r t i s s u e d its a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n on J u n e 7 , 1979, c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e T r i b a l Court h a s e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r d i v o r c e a c t i o n s between I n d i a n s l i v i n g on t h e Northern Cheyenne R e s e r v a t i o n . The T r i b a l C o u r t reviewed t h e T r i b a l Code and found t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r d i v o r c e s was g r a n t e d to t h e T r i b a l C o u r t by Chapter 11, S e c t i o n 1, which p r o v i d e s : "The T r i b a l C o u r t of t h e Northern Cheyenne R e s e r v a t i o n s h a l l have j u r i s d i c t i o n of a l l s u i t s wherein t h e d e f e n d a n t is a member of t h e Northern Cheyenne T r i b e of t h e Northern Cheyenne I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n o r s u b j e c t t o t h e J u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s c o u r t . . .I1 The T r i b a l Court f u r t h e r determined t h a t Montana l a w was t o be a p p l i e d by t h e T r i b a l C o u r t t o m a r r i a g e and d i v o r c e cases a c c o r d i n g to Chapter 111, S e c t i o n 1 o f t h e T r i b a l Code. The T r i b a l C o u r t found t h a t any o t h e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e T r i b a l Code would c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e T r i b a l C o n s t i t u t i o n which g i v e s t h e T r i b e t h e power to r e g u l a t e t h e domestic r e l a t i o n s of its members. Any p u r p o r t e d c e s s i o n of j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e T r i b e to t h e S t a t e would v i o l a t e t h e T r i b a l C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s c o n t r o l l i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n , a c c o r d i n g to t h e c i t i n g p u b l i c L a w 280 and t h e I n d i a n C i v i l R i g h t s Ac S 1321 e t s e q . The a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n also d i s c u s s e s t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e T r i b a l Code, p u b l i c p o l i c y , and -- Bad Horse. W e a p p l y t h e t h r e e - p a r t test of S t a t e ex rel. I r o n Bear v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t , s u p r a . Montana h a s n o t o b t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e Northern Cheyenne T r i b e under t h e a p p r o p r i a t e A c t s of Congress, e i t h e r P u b l i c Law 280 o r its s u c c e s s o r , t h e I n d i a n C i v i l R i g h t s Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 5 1321 e t seq. F i s h e r v. ~ i s t r i c t Court ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 424 U.S. 382, 96 S.Ct. 943, 47 L.Ed.2d 106. While it is n o t clear, i n t h e l i g h t of F i s h e r , whether t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court would d e t e r m i n e t h a t a T r i b a l e n a c t - ment p r i o r to 1953 which p u r p o r t s to cede j u r i s d i c t i o n to t h e S t a t e , as is t h e case h e r e , would be d e f e a t e d by public Law 280 o r t h e I n d i a n C i v i l R i g h t s A c t of 1968. Accordingly, we f o l l o w o u r p r e v i o u s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n I r o n Bear t h a t S t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n -- g r a n t e d by t h e T r i b e p r i o r to 1953 remains u n a f f e c t e d by t h o s e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s u n t i l such t i m e a s t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court speaks on t h e s u b j e c t . Is t h e e x e r c i s e of S t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n over domestic r e l a - t i o n s of R e s e r v a t i o n r e s i d e n t s an i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h T r i b a l self-government? W e a p p l y t h e d o c t r i n e of a b s t e n t i o n a s we d i d i n S t a t e ex rel. S t e w a r t v. District Court ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. I ,- (JYI 609 P.2d &l, 37 St.Rep. 635. Accordingly, we d e f e r to t h e advi- s o r y o p i n i o n of Northern Cheyenne A p p e l l a t e Court holding t h a t t h e T r i b a l Court has e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n over d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e a c t i o n s a r i s i n g be tween members of t h e T r i b e r e s i d i n g w i t h i n t h e R e s e r v a t i o n . W e d e f e r to t h a t o p i n i o n on t h e b a s i s of comity b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e T r i b a l Court should i n t e r p r e t T r i b a l l a w a s a m a t t e r of p o l i c y and t h a t S t a t e c o u r t s should a b s t a i n from i n t e r p r e t i n g T r i b a l law to t h e c o n t r a r y i n c a s e s where t h e T r i b a l Court has spoken on t h e s u b j e c t . Our 1974 -- Bad Horse d e c i - s i o n is e x p r e s s l y o v e r r u l e d s i n c e t h e Northern Cheyenne A p p e l l a t e Court a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n has now i n t e r p r e t e d T r i b a l law t o t h e c o n t r a r y . Although t h e T r i b a l Court has not attempted to e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s c a s e , it has e x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n i n l i k e c a s e s i n d i c a t i n g a d i s p o s i t i o n t o preempt S t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n . T h i s Court has been a s s u r e d by t h e a t t o r n e y f o r Legal S e r v i c e s t h a t t h e T r i b a l Court of t h e Northern Cheyenne T r i b e is func- t i o n i n g i n t h i s a r e a and t h u s providing a forum f o r t r i b a l mem- b e r s t o a d j u d i c a t e domestic r e l a t i o n s d i s p u t e s so no vacuum e x i s t s i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e T r i b a l Court i n domestic r e l a - t i o n s c a s e s . N o r e a s o n e x i s t s as a matter of p o l i c y why t h i s Court should assume j u r i s d i c t i o n to t h e e x c l u s i o n of t h e T r i b a l Court. I f t h e r e were no T r i b a l forum, it is d i f f i c u l t to see how t h e e x e r c i s e of j u r i s d i c t i o n by a S t a t e c o u r t would i n f r i n g e on T r i b a l self-government. See S h e r i c k , S t a t e J u r i s d i c t i o n Over I n d i a n s a s a S u b j e c t of F e d e r a l Common Law: The Infringement- Preemption T e s t ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 2 1 Ariz. L.Rev. 85. T h i s is e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same c o n c l u s i o n reached by t h i s Court i n L i t t l e Horn S t a t e Bank v. S t o p s ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 510, 555 P.2d 211, where t h e Crow T r i b e had provided no means of e n f o r c i n g a S t a t e Court judgment and u n t i l it d i d t h e r e would be no i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h T r i b a l s e l f - government by t h e e x e r c i s e of S t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h a t area. I n view of o u r h o l d i n g on s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n , we need n o t r e a c h t h e q u e s t i o n of p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r J u d i t h Rose Limpy and t h e minor c h i l d . I n summary, we have a p p l i e d t h e d o c t r i n e of a b s t e n t i o n as a m a t t e r of comity w i t h t h e Northern Cheyenne T r i b e . Sound p u b l i c p o l i c y r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e T r i b a l C o u r t s should have t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i n t e r p r e t t h e i r T r i b a l C o n s t i t u t i o n and T r i b a l l a w where t h e I n d i a n T r i b e h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a f u n c t i o n i n g forum f o r themselves t o ad j u d i c a t e c o n t r o v e r s i e s a£ f e c t ing t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n . There is no b a s i s f o r t h e S t a t e t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t would i n t e r f ere with T r i b a l s e l f -government. The judgment of t h e District Court is r e v e r s e d and t h e c a u s e remanded t o t h a t c o u r t with d i r e c t i o n s t o e n t e r judgment i n accordance with t h i s o p i n i o n . Chief J u s t i c e W e conc