Case Name: Gerald ONE FEATHER, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. O.S.T. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION, Defendant and Appellant
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 1992-03-11
Citations: 482 N.W.2d 48
Docket Number: No. 17580
Parties: Gerald ONE FEATHER, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. O.S.T. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: MILLER, C.J. and WUEST and AMUNDSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 482
Pages: 48–51

Head Matter:
Gerald ONE FEATHER, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. O.S.T. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 17580.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Considered on Briefs Jan. 15, 1992.
Decided March 11, 1992.
Robert G. Mines, Hot Springs, for plaintiff and appellee.
Jay C. Shultz, Lynn, Jackson, Shultz & Lebrun, P.C., Rapid City, for defendant and appellant.

Opinion:
SABERS, Justice.
A state circuit court permitted execution on restricted funds of Commission contrary to a recognized tribal court order. Commission appeals. We reverse.
FACTS
Gerald One Feather, an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, filed suit in Oglala Sioux Tribal Court (Tribal Court) against the Oglala Sioux Tribe Public Safety Commission (Commission) for wrongful termination from his position as Executive Director of the Commission. The Commission administers the law enforcement functions of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation through an Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEA) (Pub.L. No. 93-638) contract with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Under this arrangement and contract, the Commission receives funds from the BIA for "allowed" direct and indirect costs and expenditures incurred during each covered fiscal year.
Although the Tribal Court dismissed One Feather's action, the Oglala Sioux Tribal Court of Appeals (Tribal Court of Appeals) reversed and ordered that One Feather be reinstated and compensated for lost wages in the sum of $17,524.00. The Tribal Court issued an Execution Order in that amount on October 2,1986 and directed payment to be made within ten days of service of that order. One Feather was unable to execute on this judgment and sought an order of contempt. Due to a determination by the BIA, via correspondence, that payment of this judgment would result in a "disallowed cost," the Tribal Court concluded on June 28, 1988:
[T]his Court cannot in good conscience order the defendants to make an appropriation that would result in a "disallowed cost" and jeopardize the Public Safety Program of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.
The Tribal Court further held that One Feather exhausted his tribal remedies and must pursue another course of action to collect his judgment and dismissed his contempt proceeding with prejudice.
One Feather appealed this ruling to the Tribal Court of Appeals. However, he failed to file a written brief. The Tribal Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Tribal Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law with one modification — the contempt action was dismissed "without prejudice."
One Feather then sought recognition of his Tribal Court judgment in South Dakota circuit court. He filed the necessary affidavits and copies of all judgments and orders from the Tribal Court and the Tribal Court of Appeals pertaining to his claim against the Commission with the circuit court. On March 1, 1990, the circuit court ordered that the Tribal Court judgment was recognized. This order specifically mentioned both the money judgment and the contempt order. However, despite Commission's Motion to Vacate Recognition of Tribal Court Order and a Motion for Discharge of Sheriff's Levy (with supporting Affidavits), the circuit court allowed execution against and disbursement of the restricted funds held by the Commission in a Rapid City bank. The Commission appeals this execution claiming that it was error for the circuit court to allow execution on funds held by the BIA and the Commission under a judgment classified as a "disallowed cost."
COMITY.
Under SDCL 1-1-25, a state court may, in certain cases, recognize tribal court orders and judgments, where the tribal court had jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties; the order or judgment was obtained without fraud and by a process assuring the requisites of an impartial administration of justice, including due notice and a hearing; the order or judgment complies with the laws, ordinances and regulations of the jurisdiction from which it was obtained; and it does not contravene the public policy of the state of South Dakota. SDCL 1-1-25. Obviously, where contested, obtaining recognition of a tribal court order or judgment is no easy task. To make matters more difficult, the party seeking recognition must establish the above conditions by clear and convincing evidence. SDCL 1-1-25(1).
In this case, One Feather was the party seeking recognition and it was not contested by the Commission. The circuit court granted recognition of the orders and judgments of the Tribal Court and Tribal Court of Appeals and no appeal was taken therefrom. SDCL 1-1-25; see also, Mexican v. Circle Bear, 370 N.W.2d 737, 741 (S.D.1985). However, once an order or judgment is recognized or granted comity, the circuit court cannot directly or indirectly reverse or vacate the order or judgment. Cf. Wooster v. Wooster, 399 N.W.2d 330, 334 (S.D.1987) (a foreign judgment must be enforced to its full extent). Modification is permitted in certain cases not involved here. SDCL l-l-25(2)(a).
In allowing execution on the funds in question, the circuit court effectively reversed the Tribal Court's conclusion that the funds were restricted and not subject to execution. This order was granted comity by the circuit court and should have been given full effect. Wooster, 399 N.W.2d at 334. Therefore, it was error for the circuit court to allow execution on the Commission's restricted funds in direct conflict with a recognized Tribal Court order.
MILLER, C.J. and WUEST and AMUNDSON, JJ., concur.
HENDERSON, J., concurs specially.
. 25 U.S.C. § 450-450n (Supp.1991).
. SDCL l-l-25(2)(a-d).
. In reversing the trial court, we need not and do not decide whether the Tribal Court was correct in determining whether these funds were in fact restricted.