Opinion ID: 891574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Jim v. CIT Fin Servs. Corp.

Text: {59} One case often cited for the proposition that Indian tribes qualify as territories for the purposes of full faith and credit is Jim v. CIT Fin. Services Corp., 87 N.M. 362, 533 P.2d 751 (1975). There, this Court held that under the general full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, the laws of the Navajo Nation were entitled to full faith and credit in New Mexico courts. With virtually no discussion, this Court concluded that the federal statute applied because the Navajo Nation is a `territory' within the meaning of that statute. Jim, 87 N.M. at 363, 533 P.2d at 752. Jim is a brief opinion which offers little explanation in support of its holding, which was at the time, and continues to be, controversial. The opinion is easily distinguished from the present case, in part because it interprets Congress's general full faith and credit statute, not the PKPA, and is therefore not directly applicable here. Furthermore, the opinion's failure to acknowledge the considerable debate, which has only grown since 1975, about whether territory means tribe weakens its conclusion. We need not overrule Jim, because it does not apply directly to the statute at issue, but we do note that its conclusion, and attendant dearth of reasoning, has become highly suspect in light of the subsequent development of case law over the last 35 years. [9] {60} In sum, we are persuaded by the growing chorus of cases holding that tribes are not states for full faith and credit purposes unless Congress explicitly designates them as such, and that tribes are not territories or possessions within the meaning of the PKPA. As a result, in the absence of further congressional action in this area, New Mexico is not bound to defer to tribal courts under the terms of the PKPA, and tribal courts are likewise not bound to defer to New Mexico courts. The PKPA simply does not apply here. For this reason, we do not need to address Wife's argument that the PKPA preempts the UCCJEA. {61} The conclusion that the PKPA does not apply here does not alter our result. Because the UCCJEA clearly applies to the New Mexico court, and the New Mexico court clearly has significant connections jurisdiction, we hold that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over the child-custody matter in this case.