Opinion ID: 1163258
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Superior Court had Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Allow Execution on the Two-Thirds of Lot 1

Text: HCA was organized under sections 16 and 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. §§ 476 and 477 (1988) (1990 and 1994 amendments to these sections are not relevant to this case)). In Hydaburg I, we held that HCA could protect those of its assets which were dedicated to its section 16 function: [HCA] can protect certain of its assets from execution under section 16 of the IRA. Hydaburg I, 826 P.2d at 756 (footnote omitted). The [superior court's] order applies only to those HCA assets involved in the joint venture with Hydaburg Fisheries. Operation of a fish processing facility was a section 17 corporate function under paragraph 1 of the charter. Id. at 757. Thus we declared that the portion of HCA's land which was not owned under or dedicated to the section 17 corporate function was protected from execution. Given that the exemption of this property is created by federal law, the defect in execution upon the property by a state court is indeed jurisdictional. [9] Jurisdiction in this case is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1360(b). Subsection 1360(b) precludes state courts from adjudicating the ownership or right to possession of property or an interest therein belonging to an Indian tribe or community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States. Ollestead v. Native Village of Tyonek, 560 P.2d 31, 34 (Alaska 1977). This statement is not limited to reservation lands, but includes all property subject to a federally imposed restraint. See id. at 35-36 n. 9. In Heffle v. State, 633 P.2d 264 (Alaska 1981), we noted the lack of state court jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership and other interests in property which is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States, Id. at 267 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1360(b)). The property at issue in Heffle was Native allotments. [10] In a case involving intestate succession of Native Regional corporation shares, we noted that if resolution of the matter involved more than an interpretation of state law on adoption and intestacy, state courts would lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the ownership of the stock. Calista Corp. v. Mann, 564 P.2d 53, 58 (Alaska 1977) (citing 43 U.S.C. § 1606(h)(2) as conferring jurisdiction otherwise withheld by 28 U.S.C. § 1360(b)). Thus, Alaska's state courts lack jurisdiction to authorize executions on properties exempted by 25 U.S.C. § 476 (IRA § 16). More particularly, if HCA proves that the disputed two-thirds of Lot 1, Block 14 is exempt property under 25 U.S.C. § 476, it is entitled to have the execution vacated as against this property and the proceedings dismissed.