Court Opinion

ID: 9371148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 16:07:18.48568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.865466
License: Public Domain

02/14/2023

                                          DA 22-0345
                                                                                          Case Number: DA 22-0345

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                          2023 MT 27N

JAYLENE CECELIA PHILLIPS,

               Petitioner and Appellee,

         v.

LEONIE CANDICE WEBB,

               Respondent and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM:           District Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District,
                       In and For the County of Phillips, Cause No. DR-21-18
                       Honorable Yvonne Laird, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

                For Appellant:

                       Thane P. Johnson, Johnson, Kevin H. Ness, Berg & Saxby, PLLP,
                       Kalispell, Montana

                For Appellee:

                       Craig Wahl, Wahl Law Firm, PLLC, Billings, Montana

                                                   Submitted on Briefs: January 4, 2023

                                                               Decided: February 14, 2023

Filed:

                                 v5,.
                       __________________________________________
                                         Clerk
Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion, shall not be cited and does not serve

as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s

quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.

¶2     Leonie Candice Webb (Candy) appeals from an order entered by the Seventeenth

Judicial District Court denying her motion to dismiss this protection proceeding for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.    Candy argues the District Court erred by incorrectly

determining that the subject assault occurred outside the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation,

and by failing to make findings regarding the tribal status of the involved parties.

¶3     According to the District Court’s findings, on May 21, 2021, Jaylene Phillips

(Jaylene) drove from her home in Billings, Montana, to Frank Webb’s (Frank) home,

located near Lodge Pole, Montana, and within the Reservation. Jaylene and Frank have

two minor daughters together, K.L.W. and O.T.W., and Frank had asked Jaylene to fix

their daughters’ hair for a kindergarten graduation later that day. Thereafter, Frank’s

mother, Candy, drove the group—Candy, Frank, Jaylene and the girls, to Dodson,

Montana, for the event. While still at Frank’s home, before the drive began, Jaylene

testified Frank was irritated and agitated, and about fifteen minutes after Jaylene arrived,

Frank confronted Jaylene with his concerns about her relationship with another man.

Becoming concerned for her physical safety, Jaylene went into the bathroom and

downloaded a recording device to her phone that she used to record the subsequent

incident.

                                             2
¶4     Once the group was in the car, Candy and Frank began assaulting Jaylene, both

physically and verbally. Frank strangled Jaylene at one point, and Candy and Frank refused

to let her out of the car. The trip began within the boundaries of the Reservation and

continued off the Reservation, including within the town of Dodson. Once they reached

Dodson, they drove around for twenty minutes while Candy and Frank continued their

assaultive behaviors upon Jaylene. Jaylene and Candy offer different perspectives about

the abuse and Candy’s involvement in it, but the District Court found from the evidence,

including the audio recording, that Jaylene’s account was credible and consistent with the

recording. Candy’s briefing does not demonstrate these findings are clearly erroneous.

¶5     Shortly after the May 21 incident, Jaylene moved to a domestic violence shelter in

Billings. Candy came to the domestic violence shelter, parked her vehicle outside, and did

not leave until local law enforcement responded to Jaylene’s calls and advised Candy to

leave. Billings is outside the Reservation.

¶6     Jaylene petitioned for a temporary order of protection, which the District Court

granted, and thereafter converted to a permanent order of protection, against Candy. The

District Court found that “much of Candy’s violent and abusive conduct occurred in the

Dodson area and in Dodson and Billings all of which are located outside the exterior

boundaries of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation and within the State of Montana.”

Noting that state courts may assume jurisdiction over an Indian party who engages in

“substantial activities . . . off the reservation,” or in action involving “significant contacts

with the state,” citing Judicial Stds. Comm’n v. Not Afraid, 2010 MT 285, ¶ 11, 358 Mont.

532, 245 P.3d 1116, the District Court concluded it had jurisdiction over Jaylene’s petition.

                                               3
¶7     Candy argues the District Court failed to enter findings regarding the parties’ Indian

status. The record indicates Candy may be a tribal member of a Washington State tribe,

but she is not a member of the Fort Belknap Tribe. It is asserted that Frank may be eligible

for membership in the Fort Belknap Tribe, but he is not an established member. Jaylene is

a descendent of the Fort Belknap Tribe, but is not a member herself. As such, no party in

this case established Fort Belknap tribal membership status. More significantly, while

Candy relies on Big Spring v. Conway (in re Estate of Big Spring), 2011 MT 109, 360

Mont. 370, 255 P.3d 121, in that case we considered the state court’s subject matter

jurisdiction over parties when the subject events occurred within the exterior boundaries of

a reservation. Big Spring, ¶ 3. Here, the actions for which the District Court issued the

order of protection occurred outside the Reservation.         Consequently,    we need not

determine the parties’ Indian status to resolve the appeal.

¶8     We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. This appeal presents

no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does not establish new precedent

or modify existing precedent. In the opinion of the Court, the case presents a question

controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable standards of review.

¶9     Affirmed.

                                                         /S/ JIM RICE

We concur:

/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON

                                             4
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON

                          5