Opinion ID: 1160937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the nature and purpose of post-remand proceedings to be conducted under this court's mandate

Text: ¶ 19 We are remanding this cause for a hearing and determination of at least two unresolved issues essential to deciding the deficiency-order debtors' claim to an exemption from garnishment based upon immunity conferred on their ownership of restricted Indian lands: (a) whether only one or both tracts of land from which the royalty proceeds derived stood unrestored to restricted status at the critical time in contest and (b) whether any part of the garnishment-impressed res can be traced to post-restoration runs. [26] In the post-remand proceedings directed to be held the deficiency debtors will bear the burden of showing that the gas run proceeds sought to be seized by Halliburton are in fact allocable to production from restricted Indian lands. ¶ 20 The record in this case lacks clarity with reference to the two critical tracts from which gas production was taken. According to the Secretary's answer, the BIA issued a relinquishment of supervision [cessation of restricted status] as to both tracts. No supporting documents are attached to its answer. The defendants' motion for reconsideration raises a serious question about the status of one of the tracts. To that motion they attach (a) a September 5, 1986 relinquishment of supervision issued on only one tract of land and (b) a letter from the BIA to an oil company about the expiration of a lease on the other tract. This correspondence, as the defendants urge, indicates that the BIA may not have relinquished supervision over the latter property. The question whether both properties' restricted status was removed in 1986 is of course one of fact. It should be resolved on remand. ¶ 21 The garnishee's amended answer, which states that Kerr-McGee is holding funds for defendant Taylor, does not reveal whether any of the funds on hand are attributable to gas production before or after restoration of the producing property's restricted status. If any runs in contest are from post-restoration land, they would stand impressed with a claim of immunity. Should the court determine that the funds cannot be traced to post-restoration runs, the garnishment-impressed res would be subject to creditor's seizure. ¶ 22 The answer of the Secretary is fraught with an inherent ambiguity, perhaps because of the BIA's misunderstanding that the instant proceeding was one to enforce a judgment lien rather than one to reach personalty through garnishment process for the satisfaction of a deficiency determination. According to the Secretary's response, the royalty income from the two restricted properties was subject to the preexisting judgment lien. If the Secretary was mistaken, as we believe he may have been, that the process in progress was for a judgment lien enforcement rather than one to seize funds by garnishment, the BIA should be afforded the opportunity to clarify its position after remand.