97-499

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 No. 97-499

 ___________________________________

LARRY SMITH, )

 )

 Petitioner, )

 )

 v. ) OPINION

 )

THE HONORABLE JOHN McKEON, sitting as ) AND

District Judge in the Fifteenth Judicial District)

Court, Roosevelt County, Montana ) ORDER

 )

IN RE MARRIAGE OF )

 )

LARRY SMITH, )

 )

 Petitioner )

 )

 and )

 )

BRIDGET SMITH, )

 )

 Respondent. )

 ___________________________________

 The petitioner, Larry Smith, has petitioned this Court for an order of 

supervisory

control pursuant to Rule 17, M.R.App.P., and Article VII, Section 2, of the Montana

Constitution. 

 In support of his petition for supervisory control, Smith has established that 

he is

an Indian person, duly enrolled as a member of the Fort Peck Tribes, who resides on 

the

Fort Peck Indian Reservation near Wolf Point, Montana, and that his spouse, Bridget

Smith, is a non-Indian person who resides in Wolf Point, Montana. The petitioner has

filed a petition in the District Court for the Fifteenth Judicial District in 

Roosevelt County

for dissolution of his marriage. The respondent, the Honorable John McKeon, is the

presiding judge who has assumed jurisdiction to decide that petition.

 Some percentage of the petitioner's assets consist of Indian trust land held in 

trust

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for his benefit. On December 3, 1996, the District 

Court

ordered the petitioner to obtain an appraisal of the trust properties from the 

Bureau of

Indian Affairs to assist the court in its division of the marital estate. When the 

BIA

rejected that request, petitioner was ordered to appeal its rejection to the 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-499%20(09-30-97)%20Opinion.htm (1 of 4)4/16/2007 1:13:04 PM
97-499

district office

for the BIA in Billings. When the district office affirmed the local office's 

rejection, the

petitioner was ordered to appeal that decision to the Board of Appeals in Washington,

D.C.

 The petitioner contends that the trust lands are not subject to valuation or 

division

in a dissolution proceeding and, therefore, that he has been ordered to take a 

position

before the Board of Appeals in Washington, D.C., which is inconsistent with the law. 

The petitioner contends that he will be irreparably damaged if required to argue a 

position

unfavorable to him at the national level.

 The petitioner contends, based on our decision In re Marriage of Wellman (1993),

258 Mont. 131, 852 P.2d 559, that the District Court has no jurisdiction to divide 

Indian

trust lands and, therefore, no jurisdiction to require the appraisal of Indian trust 

lands,

and that neither can the District Court require an appraisal as a "condition 

precedent" to

assuming jurisdiction in this matter. 

 The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation have appeared as

amici curiae in support of Larry Smith's petition. 

 In response, the District Court contends that it cannot be called upon to make

equitable division of the marital estate without first knowing the value of Indian 

trust

properties which represent a significant portion of the marital estate. The 

District Court

states that it has not required the petitioner to take any position with the 

Secretary of

Interior with regard to the value of the trust land property. The petitioner has 

been

ordered to participate only so that the Secretary can make a proper valuation. 

 Bridget Smith, in her response to the petition for supervisory control, points 

out

that petitioner previously filed a petition for supervisory control on the same 

basis on

January 30, 1997, and that it was denied by this Court on February 20, 1997. Bridget

also contends that this case is not appropriate for supervisory control, and that 

even if it

was, it should be denied on the merits because if she is denied a BIA appraisal, her 

right

to due process and a proper valuation of the marital estate will be denied.

 DISCUSSION

 We held in Plumb v. Fourth Judicial District Court (1996), 279 Mont. 363, 927

P.2d 1011, that where a district court is proceeding based on a mistake of law, and 

the

cost and complexity of a case will thereby be affected to the extent that a 

substantial

injustice will occur, and there is no adequate remedy by appeal, a party is entitled 

to the

exercise of supervisory control. On that basis, we accept supervisory control in 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-499%20(09-30-97)%20Opinion.htm (2 of 4)4/16/2007 1:13:04 PM
97-499

this case.

 In Wellman, we held that a district court had neither jurisdiction to distribute

Indian trust land nor consider its value for purposes of valuing the marital 

estate. We

held as follows:

Thus, an assertion of state court jurisdiction to apportion a marital estate

consisting primarily of Indian trust land appears on its face to be in conflict

with the federal government's direct interest in Indian trust property.

 Robert attempts to circumvent this barrier by arguing that even

though the District Court has no authority to transfer title to the trust land

to a non-Indian, it has the power to value the marital estate and the

obligation to apportion it equitably, either by awarding him a monetary

judgment equal to his equitable share of the estate or by ordering the land

to be sold to other tribal members and the proceeds divided. We disagree.

 . . . .

 Here, we are urged to assert state court jurisdiction over Indian trust

land by figuratively bringing it into state court for valuation prior to an

ordered sale and division of proceeds or a monetary award equal to

Robert's equitable share of the value of the land. Based on our discussion

of 28 U.S.C. 1360(b), above, we conclude that any of these actions

would result in a prohibited adjudication of interests in Indian trust land. 

See Sheppard, 655 P.2d at 923 (Bristline, J., dissenting).

 . . . .

 We hold that, under the facts of this case, the District Court did not

err in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the disposition of

the Indian trust land that was the parties' only significant marital asset.

Wellman, 258 Mont. at 137-41, 852 P.2d at 563-65.

 If the District Court has no authority to distribute petitioner's Indian trust 

land and

no authority to consider its value for purposes of distributing the remainder of the 

marital

estate, it has no authority to order him to request an appraisal of that property 

from the

BIA and to appeal the BIA's refusal to give him one. Neither does the District Court

have authority to condition acceptance of those issues over which it properly has

jurisdiction on the parties' willingness to give the court jurisdiction over Indian 

trust

lands.

 For these reasons, we accept supervisory jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 17,

M.R.App.P., and hold that the District Court erred when it ordered Larry Smith to

request an appraisal of his Indian trust lands from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

and when

it ordered him to appeal the BIA's refusal to give him an appraisal. That order of 

the

District Court is REVERSED and set aside.

 This case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings necessary to

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-499%20(09-30-97)%20Opinion.htm (3 of 4)4/16/2007 1:13:04 PM
97-499

dissolve the parties' marriage and distribute that part of the marital estate over 

which the

District Court does have jurisdiction.

 The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a true and correct copy of this order to 

all

parties of record.

 DATED this 30th day of September, 1997.

 /S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER

 /S/ JIM REGNIER 

 /S/ JAMES C. NELSON

 /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

 /S/ KARLA M. GRAY

Chief Justice J. A. Turnage would deny the application for writ of supervisory 

control.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-499%20(09-30-97)%20Opinion.htm (4 of 4)4/16/2007 1:13:04 PM