Title: LITTLE HORN STATE BANK v STOPS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13338
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: October 7, 1976

No. 13338 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1976 LITTLE HORN STATE BANK, P l a i n t i f f and 9 R O B E R T STOPS AND NORMA STOPS, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Clarence T. Belue argued, Hardin, Montana For Respondent : Cate, Lynaugh, Fitzgerald and Huss, Billings, Montana Thomas J. Lynaugh argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: September 9, 1976 Decided: ~ I C T - 7 2 9 1 ' 6 Filed: '. ' 7 ' icj/\; M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This is an appeal from an order e n t e r i n g a permanent i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t levying o r executing upon t h e property of respondents within t h e Crow Indian Reservation. The i n j u n c t i o n w a s ordered i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Big Horn County. This appeal adds another chapter t o t h e never ending s t o r y of Indian j u r i s d i c t i o n . The r e l e v a n t f a c t s a r e as follows: Respondents, members of t h e Crow Indian Tribe r e s i d i n g on t h e Crow Indian Reservation, obtained a loan from a p p e l l a n t bank located i n Hardin, Montana, and f a i l e d t o repay t h e loan. This commercial t r a n s a c t i o n took p l a c e a t t h e bank which i s located o u t s i d e t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of t h e Crow Indian R e s e r - vation. Process w a s served upon respondents on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . Thereafter a p p e l l a n t obtained a judgment i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of 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 t h e amount of $3,541.24. Following t h i s judgment on February 18, 1976, execution w a s issued by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t on February 23, 1976. The w r i t of execution was d i r e c t e d t o t h e s h e r i f f of Big Horn County, who proceeded t o garnish t h e wages of respondents earned on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n but within Big Horn County. Respondents sought and obtained injunc- t i v e r e l i e f a g a i n s t t h e w r i t of execution. Appellant seeks t o d i s s o l v e t h e permanent i n j u n c t i o n and be allowed t o levy upon t h e respondents' property and wages within t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . Respondents d i d not a t t a c k t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n o r personal j u r i s d i c t i o n a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t l e v e l o r before t h i s Court. Both of t h e s e i s s u e s have been l a i d t o rest by Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 4 1 1 U.S. 145, 93 S . C t . 1267, 36 L Ed 2d 1 1 4 , 119, and Bad Horse v. Bad Horse, 163 Mont. 445, 517 P.2d 893, c e r t . den. 419 U.S. 847, 95 S.Ct. 83, A review of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n had no Indian j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d i s p u t e been involved, i s u s e f u l t o t h i s d e c i s i o n . I t has been a long standing d o c t r i n e t h a t any c o u r t having j u r i s d i c t i o n t o render a judgment a l s o has t h e power t o enforce t h a t judgment through any o r d e r o r w r i t necessary t o c a r r y i t s judgment i n t o e f f e c t . U.S. ex rel. Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 W a l l . 166, 18 L.Ed 768 (1868); Pam-to-Pee v . United S t a t e s , 187 U.S. 371, 23 S.Ct. 1 4 2 , 47 L . E ~ 221 (1902); Hamilton v . Nakai, 453 F.2d 152, cert. den. 406 U.S. 945, 92 S.Ct. 2044, The United S t a t e s Supreme Court defined " j u r i s d i c t i o n " a t p. 773 i n Riggs: " * * * J u r i s d i c t i o n i s defined t o be t h e power t o hear and determine t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r i n controversy i n t h e s u i t b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , and t h e r u l e i s u n i v e r s a l , t h a t i f t h e power is conferred t o render t h e judqment o r e n t e r t h e d e c r e e , it a l s o i n c l u d e s t h e power t o i s s u e proper process t o enforce such judqment o r decree. * * * "Express determination of t h i s c o u r t i s t h a t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of a c o u r t is n o t exhausted by t h e r e n d i t i o n of t h e judgment, b u t c o n t i n u e s u n t i l t h a t judgment s h a l l be s a t i : i f i e d . * * *" ( ~ m p h a s i s added.) The Montana l e g i s l a t u r e enacted s e c t i o n 93-1106, R.C.M. 1947, which c o n t a i n s language analagous t o t h i s p r i n c i p l e . W e have i n t e r p r e t e d s e c t i o n 93-1106 t o c o n f e r upon a c o u r t , having proper j u r i s d i c t i o n , a l l t h e means necessary t o c a r r y t h e same i n t o e f f e c t , and i f t h e c o u r t has t h e power t o make a n o r d e r , it has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o enforce t h a t o r d e r . S t a t e ex rel. Eisenhauer v. District Court, 54 Mont. 172, 168 P. 522. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n i t i a l l y sought t o e n f o r c e i t s judg- ment by a w r i t of execution pursuant t o s e c t i o n 93-5801 e t s e q . , R.C.M. 1947. A w r i t of execution a g a i n s t property of a judgment d e b t o r may be issued by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o t h e s h e r i f f of any county i n t h e s t a t e . S e c t i o n 93-5809, R.C.M. 1947. Thus, a d i s t r i c t c o u r t has s t a t e w i d e enforcement power under t h a t s e c t i o n . However, t h e w r i t must i s s u e t o t h e proper s h e r i f f , s i n c e a s h e r i f f has no a u t h o r i t y t o s e r v e t h e w r i t o u t s i d e of h i s county. Merchants C r e d i t S e r v i c e v . ChJteau Co. Bank, 112 Mont. 229, 1 1 4 P.2d 1074. Absent t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e Crow Indian Reservation, t h e r e is no q u e s t i o n t h a t t h i s w r i t of execution would be a v a l i d means of enforcing t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The p r o p e r t y s u b j e c t t o t h e w r i t was l o c a t e d w i t h i n Big Horn County, t h e w r i t w a s d i r e c t e d t o t h e s h e r i f f of Big Horn County, and a l l o t h e r e s s e n t i a l elements of a v a l i d w r i t of execution e x i s t e d . Respondents urge u s t o hold t h a t a c o u r t having j u r i s - d i c t i o n t o render a judgment does n o t have t h e power t o e n f o r c e t h a t judgment because t h e property s u b j e c t t o such w r i t i s l o c a t e d on t h e Crow Indian ~ e s e r v a t i o n . I n e f f e c t , they a s k t h a t t h e r e s e r v a t i o n be t r e a t e d on a n even p a r with our sister s t a t e s . Such a s i t u a t i o n would n o t be f e a s i b l e , s i n c e t h e Crow T r i b e does n o t provide f o r t h e honoring of s t a t e c o u r t judgments, nor is t h e f u l l - f a i t h and c r e d i t c l a u s e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e t r i b e . Had t h e judgment d e b t o r ' s property been l o c a t e d i n a sister s t a t e , appel- l a n t bank could have obtained a judgment i n t h a t s t a t e by plead- i n g t h e Montana judgment and showing t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l r e q u i r e - ments. Such a conclusion is n o t a v a i l a b l e i n o u r s i t u a t i o n . The t a s k t o be performed by t h i s Court is t o determine whether o r n o t t h e S t a t e a c t i o n taken i n t h i s c a s e i s a c c e p t a b l e under t h e d o c t r i n e s concerning s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n over Indian r e s e r v a t i o n s . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court has applied d i f f e r e n t r a t i o n a l e from t i m e t o t i m e , and t h e r e c e n t c o u r t d e c i s i o n s must be read a s a whole t o a r r i v e a t t h e proper test t o be a p p l i e d i n t h i s case. The i n i t i a l test was propounded i n Williams v. L e e , 358 U.S. 217, 79 S . C t . 269, 3 L Ed 2d 251, 254, which s t a t e d : " * * * E s s e n t i a l l y , absent governing Acts of Congress, t h e question has always been whether t h e s t a t e a c t i o n infringed on t h e r i g h t of r e s e r v a t i o n Indians t o make t h e i r own laws and be r u l e d by them." This test was apparently overruled by Kennerly v. D i s t r i c t Court of Montana, '&@U.S. 423, 9 1 S.Ct. 480, 27 L Ed 2d 507. However, i n McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Commission, 4 1 1 U.S. 164, 93 S.Ct. 1257, 36 L Ed 2d 129, 1 4 0 , 1 4 1 , t h e Court revived t h e Williams t e s t s t a t i n g : " * * * It must be remembered t h a t c a s e s applying t h e Williams t e s t have d e a l t p r i n c i p a l l y with s i t u a t i o n s involving non-Indians. [ C i t a t i o n s omitted.] I n t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s , both t h e t r i b e and t h e S t a t e could f a i r l y claim an i n t e r e s t i n a s s e r t i n g t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n s . The Williams test w a s designed t o r e s o l v e t h i s c o n f l i c t by providing t h a t t h e S t a t e could p r o t e c t i t s i n t e r e s t up t o t h e p o i n t where t r i b a l self-govern- ment would be a f f e c t e d . " * * * This Court has t h e r e f o r e held t h a t ' t h e question has always been whether t h e s t a t e a c t i o n infringed on t h e r i g h t of r e s e r v a t i o n Indians t o make t h e i r own laws and be r u l e d by them.'" The Court still adheres t o t h e Williams test a s evidenced by t h e r e c e n t d e c i s i o n of Fisher v. D i s t r i c t Court of Montana, 4 4 U.S.L.W. 3940 (U.S. March 1, 1976), when t h e c o u r t applied t h e Williams t e s t , even though a l l p a r t i e s w e r e members of t h e Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and t h e l i t i g a t i o n a r o s e on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . The W i l l i a m s test i s appropriate t o review t h i s appeal. The l i t i g a t i o n involves a member of t h e Crow Tribe r e s i d i n g on t h e Crow Indian r e s e r v a t i o n and a nonmember, located o f f t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . It i s important t o note t h a t t h e t r a n s a c t i o n i n d i s p u t e a r o s e off t h e reservation. Therefore, we must determine whether s t a t e a c t i o n , i n t h e form of a w r i t of execution t o en- f o r c e a judgment rendered on a t r a n s a c t i o n a r i s i n g o u t s i d e t h e r e s e r v a t i o n , i n t e r f e r e s with t h e t r i b e ' s r i g h t t o make i t s own r u l e s and be governed by them. W e hold t h a t it does not. t h a t The cases holding/such i n t e r f e r e n c e has occurred p r e s e n t a combination of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n occurring on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n and t h e t r i b a l c o u r t providing j u r i s d i c t i o n over such matters. I n W i l l i a m s t h e t r i b a l c o u r t exercised j u r i s d i c t i o n over d i s p u t e s over commercial t r a n s a c t i o n s a r i s i n g on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n between members and nonmembers. I n Security S t a t e Bank v. P i e r r e , 162 Mont. 298, 511 P.2d 325, t h e t r i b a l c o u r t provided f o r c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n between members and nonmembers. I n F i s h e r , t h e most r e c e n t United S t a t e s Supreme Court c a s e so holding, t h e f a c t s r e l a t i n g t o t h e c h i l d custody d i s p u t e a l l a r o s e on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n , and t h e Crow Tribe provided f o r custody l i t i g a t i o n among members ( a l l p a r t i e s were members of t h e Crow T r i b e ) . W e note t h a t i n t h e s i t u a t i o n a t hand t h e Crow T r i b a l Court only e x e r c i s e s j u r i s d i c - t i o n over c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n between members and nonmembers i f both p a r t i e s so s t i p u l a t e . However, what is i n i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s t h e enforcement of a v a l i d judgment, not t h e proper c o u r t t o i n i t i a t e t h e l i t i g a t i o n . The t r a n s a c t i o n d i d not occur on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n a s i n t h e above c a s e s but o u t s i d e t h e r e s e r v a t i o n boundaries. The s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n was within t h e s t a t e c o u r t , not t h e t r i b a l c o u r t . The Crow Tribe provides no means of enforcing s t a t e c o u r t judgments, no method of a t t a c h i n g property of a state judgment debtor, and is not s u b j e c t t o t h e f u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t c l a u s e a s s i s t e r s t a t e s a r e . U n t i l t h e Crow Tribe has provided a means of such enforce- ment o r acted i n some manner within t h i s a r e a , we f a i l t o see how t r i b a l self-government i s i n t e r f e r e d with by assuring t h a t reserva- t i o n Indians pay f o r t h e i r d e b t s incurred o f f t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . The c r u c i a l f a c t of t h i s appeal is t h a t t h e s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n lies with t h e s t a t e c o u r t , not t h e t r i b a l c o u r t . I n t h i s c a s e t h e t r i b a l members e l e c t e d t o leave t h e r e s e r v a t i o n and conduct t h e i r a f f a i r s within t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e s t a t e c o u r t s . When they do so they a r e submitting themselves t o t h e laws of t h i s s t a t e . They cannot v i o l a t e those laws and then r e t r e a t t o t h e sanctuary of t h e r e s e r v a t i o n f o r protection. The cases analagous t o t h e s i t u a t i o n presented here a r e : S t a t e S e c u r i t i e s , Inc. v. Anderson, 84 N.M. 629, 506 P.2d 786, 789; Natewa v. Natewa, 84 N.M. 69, 499 P.2d 691, 693; and S t a t e ex r e l . Old Elk v. D i s t r i c t Court, Mont . , 552 P.2d 1394, 33 St.Rep. 637 (1976). I n a l l of t h e s e cases t h e s t a t e c o u r t properly had j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e d i s p u t e a t hand and process was allowed on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n t o bring t h e Indian defendant before t h e state court. I n Natewa, t h e wife, a Zuni Indian l i v i n g i n Wisconsin, brought a U R E S A a c t i o n a g a i n s t her ex-husband, a Zuni Indian re- s i d i n g on t h e Zuni Indian Reservation i n New Mexico. The N e w Mexico Supreme Court upheld t h e New Mexico D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s order d i r e c t i n g t h e ex-husband t o pay c h i l d support, saying: " * * * Appellant cannot i n t e r p o s e h i s s p e c i a l s t a t u s a s an Indian a s a s h i e l d t o pro- t e c t him from o b l i g a t i o n s t h a t r e s u l t from h i s marriage t o a p p e l l e e which had been entered i n t o o f f t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . * * *" I n S t a t e S e c u r i t i e s , a corporation brought s u i t t o recover on notes contracted o f f t h e r e s e r v a t i o n by Navajo Indians. The N e w Mexico Supreme Court allowed s e r v i c e upon t h e Indians while they were on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n , s t a t i n g a t p. 789: " S t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n does not e l i m i n a t e Indian j u r i s d i c t i o n , it e x i s t s concurrently with it. There is no i n t e r f e r e n c e with Indian s e l f - government. * * * . " * * * Exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n i n Indian c o u r t s , which do not n e c e s s a r i l y apply s t a t e law, may r e s u l t i n s h i e l d i n g Indians from o b l i g a t i o n s incurred o f f t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . " W e have taken a s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n i n Old Elk, holding t h a t a s h e r i f f of t h i s s t a t e may serve a warrant f o r t h e a r r e s t of an Indian on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n , when t h e crime has occurred o f f t h e reservation. The respondents e l e c t e d t o be governed by t h e l a w s of t h i s s t a t e when they l e f t t h e boundaries of t h e r e s e r v a t i o n t o o b t a i n t h e loan from t h e a p p e l l a n t . This was not a c a s e of a nonmember choosing t o t r a n s a c t h i s business within t h e boundaries of t h e Indian r e s e r v a t i o n a s i n W i l l i a m s , Kennerly, and P i e r r e . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court s t a t e d i n Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 4 1 1 U.S. 145, 93 S.Ct. 1267, 36 L Ed 2d 1 1 4 , 1 1 9 : " * * * Absent express f e d e r a l law t o t h e con- t r a r y , Indians going beyond r e s e r v a t i o n boundaries have g e n e r a l l y been held s u b j e c t t o nondiscrimin- a t o r y state l a w otherwise a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l c i t i - zens of t h e s t a t e . " [ C i t a t i o n s omitted.] Here t h e respondents d i d go beyond t h e boundaries of t h e Crow Indian r e s e r v a t i o n and t h e execution s t a t u t e s a r e nondiscrimina- t o r y and are otherwise a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l c i t i z e n s of Montana. This appeal e s s e n t i a l l y b o i l s down t o whether t h e j u r i s - d i c t i o n granted i n Mescalero i s t h e same a s t h a t defined by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n Riggs and Pam-to-Pee, o r i s it merely t h e opportunity t o render a judgment incapable of enforce- ment. The l a t t e r would be absurd. A s t h e Court s a i d i n Pam-to- Pee, a t p. 226: - "The award of execution is a p a r t , and an e s s e n t i a l p a r t , of every judgment passed by a c o u r t exercising j u d i c i a l power. It i s no judgment, i n t h e l e g a l sense of t h e t e r m , without it. Without such an award t h e judgment would be i n o p e r a t i v e and nugatory, leaving t h e aggrieved p a r t y without a remedy. It would be merely an opinion, which would remain a dead letter, and without any operation upon t h e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s * * * . I " To avoid such an i l l o g i c a l s i t u a t i o n we hold t h a t a w r i t of execution from a s t a t e c o u r t is v a l i d within t h e Indian reser- v a t i o n when such i s a means of enforcing a v a l i d judgment of t h a t court. AS we s t a t e d i n Old Elk a t 643: "Individual r i g h t s , due process, i m p a r t i a l and e f f e c t i v e maintenance of j u s t i c e and t h e p u b l i c confidence i n and r e s p e c t f o r t h e c o u r t s are paramount i n t h e r e s o l u t i o n of t h e s e kinds of matters. However, t h e s e r i g h t s and d u t i e s a r e owed t o a l l c i t i z e n s n o t only t h o s e r e s i d i n g within t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of a n Indian r e s e r v a t i o n . The c i t i z e n s of Montana g e n e r a l l y and Big Horn County p a r t i c u l a r l y would be g r o s s l y deprived i f under t h e g u i s e of i n d i v i d u a l due process they n o t only had no speedy, adequate remedy, b u t - no remedy a t a l l . " A s s t a t e d e a r l i e r , t h e s t a t e c o u r t was t h e only forum a v a i l a b l e t o t h e a p p e l l a n t . The t r i b a l c o u r t lacked s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . N o f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n could be invoked, s i n c e t h e r e was no f e d e r a l question, no d i v e r s i t y of c i t i z e n s h i p , and t h e amount i n controversy was less than $10,000. The state c o u r t had t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o render i t s judgment, n o t even t h e respondents c o n t e s t t h i s . Such would n o t be a judgment without t h e power t o enforce t h e same. The only a v a i l a b l e and peaceful means of enforcement t o t h e a p p e l l a n t was t h e w r i t of execution from t h e s t a t e c o u r t . Without such, t h e r e s u l t would be a "catch- us-off-the-reservation" s i t u a t i o n , which could p o s s i b l y l e a d t o breaches of t h e peace. I n Old Elk w e held t h a t an Indian may n o t v i o l a t e t h e c r i m i n a l laws of t h i s s t a t e while o f f t h e r e s e r v a t i o n , and then r e t u r n t o t h e sanctuary of t h e r e s e r v a t i o n and throw up h i s Indian s t a t u s a s a s h i e l d a g a i n s t enforcement of t h o s e c r i m i n a l laws. W e now hold t h e same is t r u e f o r t h e c i v i l laws of t h i s s t a t e . W e a r e n o t unmindful of Annis v. Dewey County Bank, 335 F.Supp. 1 3 3 ( 1 9 7 1 ) c i t e d by respondents. The f e d e r a l c o u r t c i t e d a u t h o r i t y from South Dakota and Minnesota i n holding t h a t s t a t e o f f i c i a l s had no j u r i s d i c t i o n on Indian r e s e r v a t i o n s e i t h e r t o s e r v e process on an e n r o l l e d member o r t o enforce a s t a t e judg- ment. The law of t h i s s t a t e i s d i r e c t l y c o n t r a r y and i n accord with New Mexico, a s evidenced by Old Elk. W e do n o t agree with t h e law c i t e d by t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t i n Annis, nor do w e a g r e e w i t h t h e i r r a t i o n a l e . The d e c i s i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s reversed and t h e i n j u n c t i o n dissolved and vac Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: Hon. Robert , District Judge, s i t t i n g n p l a c e of M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly.