Court Opinion

ID: 9515298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:55:31.492271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:27.676248
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶26.] I dissent. In Wells v. Wells, 451 N.W.2d 402 (S.D.1990), we held that the circuit court had valid jurisdiction to declare a decree of divorce between the wife and husband, and no more. At that time (1990), the law clearly provided that tribal courts, not circuit courts, had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over two Native American Indians domiciled on Indian land. Therefore, the circuit court could determine that the marriage was terminated but could not determine custody, child support or property rights on Indian land.
[¶ 27.] The majority opinion is inconsistent when it says at ¶ 20 that “Dolly’s divorce action did not commence on the reservation” and at ¶ 2 “[i]n April 1987, no longer able to endure William’s domestic abuse, Dolly fled the reservation with their five children.” How could the divorce action arise and be commenced in Rapid City when there is no showing William was ever there?
[¶ 28.] What should Dolly have done in 1990? Simple. Commence an action against William in tribal court for custody, child support and division of property. That is the only place where there was subject matter jurisdiction and the only place those judgments can be enforced.
[¶ 29.] As stated in my dissent in Weston v. Jones:
This divorce was entered on June 10, 1996, a day and age where the law clearly provided that tribal courts have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over two Native American Indians domiciled on Indian land.
For years, the law was that:
Subject matter jurisdiction can not be conferred by consent.
Subject matter jurisdiction can not be conferred by agreement.
Subject matter jurisdiction can not be conferred by stipulation.
Subject matter jurisdiction can not be conferred by waiver.
In fact, because jurisdiction can not be waived:
The lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any time. By anybody, any time, any place.
In fact, as recently as May 26, 1999, this court claimed that jurisdiction must be raised sua sponte. [FN6]
FN6. Decker v. Tschetter Hutterian Brethren, 1999 SD 62, ¶ 14, 594 N.W.2d 357, 362 (plurality opinion by Gilbertson, J., joined by Miller, C.J., and Konenkamp, J., stating “this court is required sua sponte to take note of jurisdictional deficiencies, whether presented by the parties or not ....”) (quoting State v. Phipps, 406 N.W.2d 146, 148 (S.D.1987) (citations omitted)).
But, not anymore, because now we have jurisdiction by estoppel.
1999 SD 160, ¶¶ 32-35, 603 N.W.2d 706, 713.
[¶ 30.] AND NOW, we have jurisdiction by res judicata.
*512[¶ 31.] Contrary to the majority opinion at ¶ 20, it is clear that THIS ACTION DOES INFRINGE on tribal sovereignty. See Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 79 S.Ct. 269, 3 L.Ed.2d 251 (1959) (holding that allowing a state court to exercise jurisdiction over a civil suit against an Indian where the cause of action arises on an Indian reservation “would undermine the authority of tribal courts over Reservation affairs and hence would infringe on the right of the Indians to govern themselves”). What is more important to the rights of reservation Indians than to make, determine and enforce their own laws concerning custody, child support or property rights on tribal land? This case and Weston go a long way to making tribal domestic law irrelevant.
[¶ 32.] For all these reasons, I dissent.