No. 80-108 INTHE SURPEME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980

STATE OF MONTANA, exrel., EARLENE THREE IRONS,Petitioner and Respondent,-vsDEAN CURTIS THREE IRONS, Respondent and Appellant.

Appeal from: DistrictCourt of theThirteenthJudicial District, Inand forthe County of Big Horn, The Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: D. Michael Eakin, Montana Legal Services, argued, Hardin, Montana SteveBunch argued, Montana Legal Services, 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. Garrity, Dept. of Revenue, Helena, Montana Lynaugh, Fitzgerald, Schoppert & Skaggs, Billings, Montana

Submitted: September 15, 1980 Decided: 

## 1 3

## 1%;Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from an order enteredby theBig Horn District Court under Montana's Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of SupportAct, section 40-5-101, etseq., MCA, directing the appellant, Dean Curtiss Three Irons to make child support payments. Because theDistrict Court did not have personal jurisdiction over Three Irons or subject matter jurisdiction over thetransaction, we reverse. Dean Curtiss Three Irons is an enrolled member of the Crow Indian Tribe and liveson theCrow Reservation. He is married to but separated from Earlene Three Irons, a Shoshone Indian from the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. They have two children, Tanya J. and Dean, Jr. The Three Irons were married September 16, 1974, in Denver, Colorado. During theirmarriage, they resided there and on the Crow Reservation. Earlene Three Irons has resided in Denver with the children since her separation from her husband in 1975. InNovember 1975, while a residentof Colorado, Earlene Three Irons filed a petition under Colorado's URESA which
was forwarded to Montana for enforcement proceedings. The Big Horn County District Court issued an order to show
cause. Dean Three Ironswas served with copiesof theorder and the petition within the boundaries of the Crow Indian Reservation. Appearing specially through counsel, Three Irons moved the District Court to dismiss for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The lower court denied the motion and ordered Three Irons to pay child support. On appeal, the primary issues are whether the state court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Theseissues are dispositive of the appeal and we need not consider the other issuespresented for review. This appeal is governed by our holding inStateex rel. Flammond v. Flammond (No. 80-12, Decided December 

### I?, 1980). Allof the appellant's off-reservation contacts arewith the Stateof Colorado. None arewith Montana. As inFlammond, supra, the state court had neither subject matter jurisdiction over the transaction nor 

## -- in personam 

### -- jurisdiction over thehusband. Under the circumstances, the only remedy open to the wife is to bring an appropriate enforcement of support proceeding intribalcourt. Although theCrow Tribehasnot adopted URESA, 

### its law and order code provides alternate remedies. The order of the District Court is vacated and the
cause is dismissed for lack of personal and subjectmatter jurisdiction.

WeConcur:

- - 

### - 

### ....................... \ CwfJustice

Justices 

# %-Mr. Justice JohnConway Harrison dissenting: Idissent. Seemy dissent in State ex rel. Flammond 

### v. Flammond (1980), Mont. f- P.2d

(No. 80-12, decided December 19r 1980).