Opinion ID: 502461
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: validity of the 1983 agreement under 25 u.s.c. sec. 81

Text: 55 AMA contends that, based on the rationale of the decisions in A.K. Management and Koberstein, the 1983 agreement is not subject to 25 U.S.C. Sec. 81 because it is not relative to [Indian] lands. Neither case supports AMA's argument. 56 In A.K. Management Co. v. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, 789 F.2d 785 (9th Cir.1986), a bingo contractor entered into an agreement to construct a bingo facility and operate bingo games on the Indian's reservation. Id. at 786. The agreement was never signed or approved by the BIA. Id. Three days after the agreement was signed, the contractor was notified that the Band would not recognize the agreement. Id. The contractor filed a suit in district court seeking a declaration that the agreement was valid, binding, and enforceable. Id. The district court dismissed the contractor's complaint. Id. On appeal, the contractor contended that section 81 was not applicable because the bingo agreement did not concern payment to convey Indian land or involve tribal funds. Id. at 787. In rejecting the contractor's argument, we stated: 57 AK's argument fails to recognize the specific language of section 81 which refers to agreements ... relative to [Indian] lands. ... The broad language of section 81 expresses congressional intent to cover almost all Indian land transactions.... 58 Because the Agreement gives the non-Indian contracting party, AK, the exclusive right to build and control the operation of the bingo facility located on tribal trust lands and prohibits the Band from encumbering the land, we hold that the instant agreement is relative to [Indian] lands under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 81 (1982). See Wisconsin Winnebago, 762 F.2d at 621. 59 Id. (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted). 60 In Wisconsin Winnebago Business Comm. v. Koberstein, 762 F.2d 613 (7th Cir.1985), the Seventh Circuit was confronted with the identical issue, i.e., whether the bingo agreement between Indians and a contractor is an agreement ... relative to [Indian] lands under section 81. Id. at 619. The Seventh Circuit concluded: 61 Because the Agreement gives [the contractor] the absolute right to control the operation of the bingo facility located on tribal trust lands and prohibits the exercise of the [Indian's] right to encumber tribal trust property, we hold that the Bingo Management Agreement is an agreement ... relative to [Indian] land[s], as the term is used in 25 U.S.C. Sec. 81. 62 Id. 63 In the instant case, the 1983 agreement provides in pertinent part: 64 ... Tribe is desirous of vesting in contractor the exclusive right and obligation to finance, construct, improve, develop, manage, operate and maintain the property.... (Emphasis added.) 65 All business and affairs in connection with the financing, construction, improvement, development, operation, management and maintenance of the property subject to this Agreement shall be the responsibility of the contractor.... Contractor shall have the management and control of the operation of the Bingo games.... 66 Additionally, the agreement prohibits the Band from operating any other bingo games on its property during the term of the agreement. Since the 1983 agreement gives AMA the absolute right to build and control the bingo facility and operation, and limits the Band's ability to conduct other bingo games on its reservation, the first element of A.K. Management and Koberstein is satisfied. 67 AMA claims, however, the agreement between it and the Band is substantially different from the contracts in A.K. Management and Koberstein because the 1983 agreement gives the Band substantial power and authority to review and oversee the management of bingo operations. AMA points to sections of the 1983 agreement which require it (1) to obey the Band's laws, ordinances, and regulations, (2) to obtain the Band's approval prior to substantially improving the bingo facility, and (3) to obtain the Band's approval of any encumbrance on the bingo facility. This argument lacks merit. Each of these restrictions was present in the bingo agreement in A.K. Management. 2 Nevertheless, we concluded that the management company retained absolute control of the bingo operation and facility. 68 AMA also argues that the agreement is not relative to [Indian] lands because the 1983 agreement does prohibit the Band from encumbering tribal trust land. 69 A.K. Management and Koberstein did not find (1) the management company's exclusive control of the bingo operation and facility and (2) the inability of the Indians to encumber their property were the sine qua non to finding that the bingo agreements were relative to [Indian] lands under section 81. Until Congress repeals or amends the Indian ... statutes ... we must give them a 'sweep as broad as [their] language' and interpret them in light of the intent of the Congress that enacted them. Central Mach. Co. v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 448 U.S. 160, 166, 100 S.Ct. 2592, 2596, 65 L.Ed.2d 684 (1980) (citations omitted). Under the plain meaning of [t]he broad language of section 81, A.K. Management, 789 F.2d at 787, the 1983 agreement between the Band and AMA can be termed relative to [Indian] lands even without a provision in the agreement prohibiting the Band from encumbering its property. The 1983 agreement states that AMA has the exclusive right and obligation to finance, construct, improve, develop, manage, operate and maintain the property.... This is sufficient under the broad language of section 81 to find the 1983 agreement relative to [Indian] lands under section 81. Thus, since the 1983 agreement is relative to [Indian] lands, and did not bear the indorsement or approval of the BIA or the Secretary, it is null and void under section 81. 70