Court Opinion

ID: 9398350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 22:06:56.626175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:32.937600
License: Public Domain

05/30/2023

                                     MDA 22-0615
                                                                              Case Number: DA 22-0615

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

                                    2023 MT 103N

LORI MONROE and
REBECCA ROSENBERGER,

            Petitioners,

      v.

TRA BOGGS,

           Respondent and Appellant.

TRA BOGGS, on behalf of himself
and his minor children, C.D.B. and T.J.B.,

            Counterclaimant,

      v.

LORI MONROE, REBECCA ROSENBERGER
and DAVID GORDON,

            Counterclaim Defendants
            and Appellees.

APPEAL FROM:        District Court of the Ninth Judicial District,
                    In and For the County of Glacier, Cause No. DR-2022-014
                    Honorable Robert G. Olson, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

             For Appellant:

                    Brian J. Miller, Morrison, Sherwood, Wilson, and Deola PLLP,
                    Helena, Montana
         For Appellees:

               Dawn Gray, Law Office of Dawn Gray, LLC, Cut Bank, Montana

                                       Submitted on Briefs: April 19, 2023

                                                 Decided: May 30, 2023

Filed:
                           r,.
               __________________________________________
                                Clerk

                                   2
Justice Laurie McKinnon 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 and 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     Tra Boggs (Boggs) appeals the Order Dismissing Counterclaims for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction issued by the Ninth Judicial District Court, Glacier County.

¶3     Boggs is the natural father of C.D.B. and T.J.B. (the children) and a member of the

Blackfeet Indian Tribe (Tribe). He resides in Cut Bank, Montana. Boggs has had custody

of the children their entire lives. The children’s natural mother, Chelsea Rosenberger

(Chelsea), died in a car accident on December 13, 2021.

¶4     Chelsea’s grandmother, Rebecca Rosenberger (Rebecca), lives within the exterior

boundaries of the Blackfeet Reservation. Chelsea’s aunt, Lori Rosenberger Monroe (Lori),

also lives within the exterior boundaries of the Blackfeet Reservation. Both Rebecca and

Lori are enrolled members of the Tribe. In the fall of 2020, Rebecca and Lori asked Boggs

if they could visit the children. Boggs agreed, and the children spent one weekend with

Rebecca and Lori at their residence in Browning, Montana. When the children returned to

Boggs, they told him they did not want to return for another visitation.

¶5     Nonetheless, on January 11, 2021, Rebecca and Lori filed for custody of the children

in Blackfeet Tribal Family Court. They claimed: “Tra Boggs, biological father, has a

history of violen[ce] and had to undergo Court Ordered Angered Management and at the
                                             3
time was charged with drug possession.” Boggs denied the allegations against him, but

informed the Tribal Court he was open to Rebecca and Lori having visitation with the

children.   The Tribal Court set the hearing for April 6, 2021.        Boggs requested a

continuance by phone on April 5, 2021, so he could obtain counsel. The Tribal Court did

not continue the hearing. Boggs did not appear because he believed the hearing had been

continued. At the hearing, the Tribal Court granted full custody to Rebecca and Lori. On

April 7, 2021, Cut Bank Police, pursuant to the Tribal Court’s order, removed the children

from Boggs’s mother’s home in Cut Bank and gave them to Lori and Rebecca. Boggs filed

a motion to reconsider the Tribal Court’s custody determination on April 12, 2021. The

Tribal Court set a hearing on his motion for May 6, 2021, but reset it to September 21,

2021. The Tribal Court did not return the children to Boggs but allowed him visitation.

¶6     On February 19, 2022, Boggs absconded with the children to Cut Bank and refused

to return the children to Rebecca and Lori. The Tribal Court held Boggs in contempt as a

result. Boggs filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Cut Bank, the Blackfeet Indian

Reservation, and Lori.

¶7     On May 10, 2022, Rebecca and Lori filed a Petition to Recognize a Foreign

Judgment in Glacier County District Court based on Boggs’s refusal to follow the Tribal

Court’s custody order. They also filed an Amended Petition and Notice of Custody Order

on May 19, 2022. Boggs responded and filed counterclaims, alleging abuse of process by

Lori and Rebecca, asserting they used the process of the Tribal Court against the best

interests of the children to “enrich themselves.” Boggs also alleged Rebecca and Lori

committed deceit when they implied and argued that the best interests of the children would
                                            4
be served by placing them in Rebecca’s and Lori’s care and that Boggs is an unfit parent.

Boggs further claimed that his former attorney and Lori’s attorney in the current

proceedings, David Gordon (Gordon), engaged in attorney deceit when he did not inform

Boggs that the Tribal Court had denied his motion for a continuance.

¶8      On August 10, 2022, Boggs filed a response opposing the motion for foreign

judgment. On October 7, 2022, the District Court dismissed Boggs’s counterclaims for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court held it did not have “jurisdiction

over torts that occurred entirely on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation.”

¶9     A court’s determination as to its jurisdiction is a conclusion of law, which is

reviewed de novo. Bunch v. Lancair Intl., Inc., 2009 MT 29, ¶ 15, 349 Mont. 144, 202

P.3d 784. A court may address the question of its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.

Stanley v. Lemire, 2006 MT 304, ¶ 32, 334 Mont. 489, 148 P.3d 643.

¶10    Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s power to hear and adjudicate a case.

Ballas v. Missoula City Bd. of Adjustment, 2007 MT 299, ¶ 12, 340 Mont. 56, 172 P.3d

1232. In Montana, subject matter jurisdiction is derived from Article II, Section 4, of the

Montana Constitution which states that district courts have jurisdiction over “all civil

matters and cases at law and in equity.” Mont. Const. art. VII, § 4(1); Gottlob v. DesRosier,

2020 MT 210, ¶ 8, 401 Mont. 50, 470 P.3d 188. A claim may be dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

¶11    Indian tribes are domestic dependent nations that exercise inherent sovereign

authority over their members and territories; that is, tribes may make laws to govern their

internal affairs and social relations. Okla. Tax Comm’n v. Potawatomi Tribe, 498 U.S. 505,
                                               5
509, 111 S. Ct. 905, 909 (1991). Allowing states to decide issues that are committed to

tribal courts, impermissibly infringes on the rights of tribes to maintain control over the

internal relations of its members and of its members to be governed by their sovereign.

Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 220, 79 S. Ct. 269, 271 (1959).

¶12    Determining subject matter jurisdiction of tribal affairs is based on two factors:

(1) whether the exercise of jurisdiction by a state court or regulatory body is preempted by

federal law, or (2) whether it infringes on tribal self-government. In re Estate of Gopher,

2013 MT 264, ¶ 12, 372 Mont. 9, 310 P.3d 521 (citing In re Estate of Big Spring, 2011 MT

109, ¶ 46, 360 Mont. 370, 255 P.3d 121). This Court has held that “[t]he exercise of state

jurisdiction over activities occurring entirely on Indian lands is an infringement on inherent

tribal authority and is contrary to principles of self-government and tribal sovereignty.”

Flat Ctr. Farms, Inc. v. State, 2002 MT 140, ¶ 13, 310 Mont. 206, 49 P.3d 578.

¶13    Here, the tortious conduct Boggs alleges in his counterclaims relate to custody

proceedings occurring solely on the Blackfeet Reservation and only within the jurisdiction

of the Tribal Court. The assertions made by Rebecca and Lori at the custody hearing (i.e.,

the children would be best served within their custody and that Boggs is an unfit parent)

and Boggs’s allegations that Rebecca and Lori committed fraud and deceit in front of the

Tribal Court all occurred during legal proceedings on the Blackfeet Reservation in Tribal

Court. Lori’s conduct (i.e., removing the children from the home in Cut Bank) that formed

the basis of Boggs’s abuse of process claim was pursuant to the custody order issued by

the Tribal Court. Lastly, Gordon’s alleged conduct constituting attorney deceit (i.e., not

informing Boggs that the Tribal Court denied the motion for a continuance) also took place
                                              6
in the Tribal Court proceedings. The District Court properly dismissed these proceedings

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the alleged torts occurred either on the

Blackfeet Indian Reservation or arose out of legal proceedings in Tribal Court.

Accordingly, Boggs has no remedy in State court.

¶14    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.

¶15    Affirmed.

                                                  /S/ LAURIE McKINNON

We Concur:

/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR

                                             7