Title: SECURITY STATE BANK v PIERRE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12325
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 20, 1973

No. 12325 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1973 T H E SECURITY STATE BANK, a corporation, Plaint i f f and Respond ISAAC RICHARD PIERRE, same a s RICHARD PIERRE, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Richard A. Baenen argued, Washington, D. C. Victor F. Valgenti appeared, Missoula, Montana. For Respondent: F. N. Hamman, Polson, Montana. Christiansen, McCurdy , Ingraham and Wold, Polson, Montana. F. L. Ingraham argued, Polson, Montana. Amicus Curiae Jean A. Turnage argued, Polson, Montana. ~ a m f E. Haddon argued, Missoula , Montana. - Submitted: May 31, 1973 Decided : JUN 2 0 1973 Filed : JUN 2 0 197' M r . Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from an order of the d i s t r i c t court of the fourth judicial d i s t r i c t , county of Lake, Hon. E. Gardner Brownlee, judge presiding, granting default judgment against an enrolled Indian. The cause was originally heard i n t h i s Court i n December 1972, and an opinion issued i n February 1973, which was recalled and the cause was reheard on M a y 31, 1973. The sole issue on appeal is whether the s t a t e courts of Montana have jurisdiction over a c i v i l dispute involving a com- mercial transaction entered into on the Flathead Reservation between an enroll-ed member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes residing on the reservation and a nonmember. The relevant facts are not i n dispute and were stipulated t o a t a hearing before the t r i a l court. Judge Brownlee for hearing purposes joined t h i s case and the case of R.onan State Bank v. Jewett, due t o the fact the same jurisdiction question was involved . I n view of the complexity of jurisdiction questions involving Indian reservations and the number of cases that t h i s Court i s receiving, w e w i l l d e t a i l the stipulated facts with the thought that somewhere i n the federal appellate process the f i n a l author- i t y w i l l be able t o more clearly understand the perplexity of s t a t e jurisdictional problems and the near impossibility of t h e i r solution due t o prior federal decisional case law. Defendant Isaac Richard Pierre i s an enrolled t r i b a l member, living within the confines of the reservation. Pierre borrowed money from plaintiff Security State Bank giving a note as evi- dence of the loan a t Polson, Montana, located within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Indian Reservation. Such reservation i s located i n four counties of the s t a t e , Missoula, Lake, Sanders and Flathead, and consists of approximately 1,250,000 acres of which 615,418 acres i s t r u s t land. The t o t a l resident membership of the t r i b e i s 19 percent of the t o t a l population l i v i n g within the e x t e r i o r boundaries of the reservation. The f u l l blood en- rollment of the t r i b e i s 3 - 3 percent. Defendant Pierre possesses three quarters Indian blood. In 1924, a l l persons of Indian heritage were declared United States c i t i z e n s . The Flathead Tribe was incorporated a s a federal corporation under the Wheeler- Howard Act i n 1935, the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. $1 4.61 e t seq, Under the provisions of the federal charter the t r i b e i s t o be self-governing and one of i t s powers i s t o s e t up a court system. The Flathead Tribal Court has a chief judge and three associate judges who t r y cases and when necessary the three asso- c i a t e judges serve a s an appellate court. These judges a r e not legally trained but a r e l a y people, similar t o j u s t i c e s of the peace. There is no appellate procedure from a decision of the three judge t r i b a l court. Following t h e o r i g i n a l recalled opinion i n the i n s t a n t case, t h i s Court decided another Indian j u r i s d i c t i o n a l matter, S t a t e ex r e l . Mary Iron Bear v. D i s t r i c t Court of the Fifteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Mont . 9 P.2d , 30 St.kep. 482,490. I n Iron Bear the Court said: l t Before a d i s t r i c t court can assume jurisdiction i n any matter submitted t o it, i t must find subject matter jurisdiction by determining: (1) whether the federal t r e a t i e s and s t a t u t e s applicable have preempted s t a t e jurisdiction; (2) whether the exer- c i s e of s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n would i n t e r f e r e with reservation self-government; and (3) whether t h e Tribal Court i s currently exercising jurisdiction o r has exercised jurisdiction i n such a manner a s t o preempt s t a t e jurisdiction. I I Here, not one of the Court's required three t e s t s i s met. A t the time of the f i l i n g of the i n s t a n t case i n the d i s t r i c t court the Tribal Court was i n existence though it had no ordinance on debt actions nor was i t possible f o r a nonIndian t o sue an Indian unless the Indian stipulated t o being sued. However, t h a t situa- tion has now changed and limited debt actions can now be f i l e d i n Tribal Court and nonIndians can sue t r i b a l members. The t r i a l court and t h i s Court received comprehensive briefs from the parties. Defendant r e l i e s on a number of recent Montana cases: Kennerly v. District Court, 400 U,S. 423, 425, 91 Sect. 480, 27 L ed 2d 507; Crow Tribe v. Deernose, 158 Mont, 25, 487 P.2d 1133; Blackwolf v. District Court, 158 Mont, 523, 493 P.2d 1293; State ex r e l . Iron Bear v. District Court, Mont - * - Y - P.2d - 9 30 St.Rep. 482, Defendant argues the facts here and those i n Kennerly cannot be distinguished therefore Kennerly controls and the action of the t r i a l judge should be reversed. In Kennerly, two members of the Blackfeet Indian Tribe, residing on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, purchased over $200 worth of food on credit from a grocery store located on the reservation and refused t o pay a f t e r the goods were consumed. Suit was begun i n the s t a t e d i s t r i c t court against the Indian t o collect the debt. Defendant Indians moved t o dismiss the s u i t on the grounds the s t a t e court lacked jurisdiction due t o the fact defendants were members of the Blackfeet Tribe and the transaction took place on the reser- vation. The d i s t r i c t court overruled defendants' motion and de- fendants applied t o t h i s Court for a w r i t of supervision which was granted. In i t s opinion, t h i s Court upheld the action of the d i s t r i c t court. State ex rel. Kennerly v. D i s t . Court, 154 Mont. 488, 466 P,2d 85. On a writ of c e r t i o r a r i t o the United States Supreme Court, that court overruled t h i s Court's decision holding that the s t a t e of Montana lacked jurisdiction over the Indians of the Blackfeet Tribe because the s t a t e had never taken the necessary "affirmative legislative action" concerning either c i v i l or criminal jurisdiction with respect t o the reservation. The United States Supreme Court quoted from the Act of August 15, 1953, 67 Stat, 590, Section 7, which provides: "The consent of the United States i s hereby given t o any other State not having jurisdiction with respect t o criminal offenses or c i v i l causes of action, or with respect t o both, a s provided for i n t h i s Act, t o assume jurisdiction a t such t i m e and i n such manner a s the people of the State shall, by affirmative legislative action, obligate and bind the State t o assumption thereof." A r e s u l t of the Kennerly decision was t o dry up credit sources throughout the s t a t e t o responsible Indian citizens, a void not f i l l e d by any federal source. However, i n t h i s case, unlike Kennerly, the s t a t e has passed enabling legislation with respect t o jurisdiction over Indians residing on the Flathead Reservation. T i t l e 83, Chapter $, sections 83-801 through 83-804, R.C.M. 1947, provides for the assumption of c i v i l and/or criminal jurisdiction over Indians of the Flathead Tribe and the t i m e and manner by which such jurisdiction could be assumed. The legislature conditioned assump- tion of jurisdiction by the s t a t e on the written consent of the tribe, a s expressed by a formal resolution, A pertinent provi- sion of section 83-802, R.C.M. 1947, reads: "Whenever the governor of t h i s s t a t e s h a l l receive from the t r i b a l council or other governing body of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Indian tribes, community, band or group of Indians i n t h i s s t a t e , a resolution, expressing i t s desire that i t s people and lands be subject t o the criminal and/or c i v i l jurisdiction of the s t a t e of Montana t o the extent authorized by federal law and regulation, he shall issue within sixty (60) days a proclamation t o the effect that such jurisdiction s h a l l apply t o those Indians and their territory, o r reservation i n ac- cordance with the provisions of t h i s a c t , * * *". (Emphasis added). State law precludes Montana from assuming jurisdiction over Indians on the reservation not tendered by the tribes by formal resolution. In a recent case, State ex r e l , McDonald v. District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, M o n t . , 496 P.2d 78,80, 29 St.Rep, 265, 268, we reviewed the steps taken by the Flathead Tribe i n presenting a resolution t o the governor on accepting s t a t e jurisdiction: t t Tribal consent t o the assumption of criminal juris- diction by the s t a t e courts of Montana over Indians committing crimes on the Flathead Indian Reservation was granted by the enactment of Tribal Ordinance 40-A, dated M a y 16, 1964. The governor of Montana thereafter issued the required proclamation on June 30, 1964. Amost a year l a t e r on M a y 5, 1965 Tribal Ordinance 40-A (Revised) was enacted. This ordinance was similar t o the original Ordinance 40-A except for clarifying language limiting its scope t o criminal laws and repealing the original Ordinance 40-A, The governor of Montana thereafter issued another procla- mation accordingly dated October 8, 1965, "Several months l a t e r on June 22, 1966, Tribal Resolu- tion 1973 was enacted expressly rescinding Tribal Ordinances 40-A and 40-A (Revised), There i s no evi- dence that t h i s Tribal Resolution was ever transmitted t o o r received by the governor of Montana; nor was any proclamation of the governor made i n connection with t h i s Resolution. On June 30, 1966, Tribal Resolution 1997 was enactedtjhich expressly rescinded Tribal Reso- lution 1973 enacted eight days previously. Again no governor's proclamation was issued concerning Tribal Resolution 1997. " O n September 15, 1967 Tribal Resolution 2318 was en- acted requesting the governor of Montana t o extend the time l i m i t for withdrawal from s t a t e jurisdiction for an additional year a f t e r October 7, 1967, and with- drawing i t s consent t o such s t a t e jurisdiction, It further provided that t h i s Tribal Resolution was n u l l and void i f the governor extended such time l i m i t as requested, On October 8, 1967 the governor issued a third proclamation extending the t i m e l i m i t for the ~ r i b e ' s withdrawal of their consent t o s t a t e jurisdic- tion for an additional year from October 7, 1967. re in ally, on April 30, 1971, the Tribal Council passed 1 a motion t o seek retrocession on State Concurrent ~ u r i s d i c t i o n ' . The record discloses no further action i n conformity with t h i s motion." Section 83-801, R..C.M. 1947, provides: "Criminal jurisdiction of Flathead Indian country t o be assumed. The s t a t e of Montana hereby obli- gates and binds i t s e l f t o assume, a s herein provided, criminal jurisdiction over Indians and Indian ter- r i t o r y of the Flathead Indian reservation and country within the s t a t e i n accordance with the consent of the United States given by the a c t of August 15, 1953 (Public Law 280, 83rd Congress, 1st session). 11 N o reference i s made to c i v i l jurisdiction i n the above quoted section, however, i n section 83-802, R.C.M. 1947, setting up the procedure for the tribes t o request s t a t e jurisdiction, t h i s language appears: "* * * a resolution, expressing i t s desire that its people and lands be subject t o +he criminal and/or c i v i l jurisdiction of the s t a t e of Montana t o the extent authorized by federal law and regu- lation * * 9c." Tribal Ordinance 40-A of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, passed on M a y 15, 1964, s e t f o r t h the extent of jurisdictiorr and subjects: " (a) Compulsory School Attendance "(b) Public Welfare " (c) Domestic Relations (except adoptions) "(d) Mental Health, Insanity, Care of the Inform, Aged and Afflicted "(e) Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Rehabilitation " ( f ) Adoption Proceedings (With consent of the Tribal Court) " ' ( g ) Abandoned, Dependent, Neglected, Orphaned o r Abused Children "(h) Operation of Motor Vehicles Upon the Public S t r e e t s , Alleys, Roads and Highways " ( i ) Laws of the S t a t e of Montana, and Ordinances and Regulations of a Criminal Nature Applicable within Incorporated C i t i e s and Towns, 11 Less than a year l a t e r on May 5 , 1965, Tribal Ordinance 4 0 4 (Revised) was passed by the Tribal Council which specifi- c a l l y limited jurisdiction t o criminal laws, Subsection ( i ) of 40-A (Revised) reads: " ( i ) A l l Criminal Laws of the S t a t e of Montana; and a l l Criminal Ordinances of C i t i e s and Towns within the Flathead Indian Reservation." (Emphasis added). Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 8 L.Ed 483 (1832), established t h a t t i t l e t o Indian country meant more than t i t l e within the ordinary proprietary concepts of our law of r e a l property. It included a l l aspects of sovereign government control. These concepts--Indians being a foreign people and Indian country being a foreign land--are under present f a c t u a l conditions t o t a l l y inconcistent with the citizenship of Indians i n the United StatEs and the s t a t e wherein they reside. As we noted i n Kennerly, Indians of t h i s s t a t e a r e c i t i z e n s of Montana; they a r e e n t i t l e d t o the protection of our laws and a r e responsi- b l e t o our laws; they a r e e n t i t l e d t o vote and do so; many hold public o f f i c e ; they help e l e c t t h e judiciary of t h i s s t a t e ; and, w e might add, they have l e g i s l a t o r s i n both houses of our legis- la ture. P l a i n t i f f argues t h a t t h e e f f e c t of Kennerly, Deernose and Slackwolf i s t o c r e a t e among reservation Indians a special c l a s s of c i t i z e n s having "rights" not afforded other c i t i z e n s of the s t a t e while a t the same t i m e denying basic constitutional r i g h t s t o those with whom the Indians c r e a t e obligations otherwise en- forceable i n the courts. Further, t h a t such anomaly founded solely upon ethnic considerations i s wholly out of step with enlightened constitutional principles, c i t i n g : Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U,S. 371, 91 S e c t . 780, 28 L ed 2d 113; Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U,S. 254, 90 S e c t , 1011, 25 L ed 2d 287; Stanley v, I l l i n o i s , 405 U.S. 645, 92 S e c t . 1208, 31 L ed 2d 551. A l l of the c i t e d cases consider the basic constitutional principle of equal protection of the law being afforded a l l c i t i z e n s notwithstanding differences i n race, alienage, r e l i g i o n , poverty, o r class. W e do not take i s s u e with p l a i n t i f f ' s argu- ment o r the cases c i t e d , but find w e a r e confronted with the recent United States Supreme Court opinion i n Kennerly and with what we believe t o be, a t l e a s t now, the erroneous concept set down i n Worcester t h a t the t r i b e s were nations with whom t r e a t i e s had t o be made, Until t h a t concept i s changed, there i s l i t t l e s t a t e courts can do t o afford the equal protection of our law t o both its Indian and nonIndian c i t i z e n s on c i v i l matters a r i s i n g within t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of an Indian reservation. Kennerly is controlling and the s t a t e cannot exercise c i v i l jurisdiction where it i n t e r f e r e s with the self-government of the Flathead Tribe, o r impairs a r i g h t granted, reserved o r preempted by Congress. Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60, 82 S.Ct. 562, 7 L ed 2d 573; Warren Trading Post v. Arizona Tax Comm., 380 U.S. 685, 85 S.Ct. 1242, 14 L ed 2d 165; Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 79 S.Ct. 269, 3 L ed 2d 251. The decision of the d i s t r i c t court i s reversed and i t s order of June 7, 1972, i s ordered vacated. L~L-+--&- / ssociate ~ u s t c e Associate Justices f , i ' - - - 1 . ---------------.---------------- Hon. Bernard Thomas, District Judge, sitting for Justice Wesley Castles,