STATE EX REL STEWART v DISTRICT CO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 79-73 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 - STATE EX REL. DONALD STEWART, JR., Petitioner, VS. DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT et al., Respondents. - ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Petitioner: D. Michael Eakin, Hardin, Montana For Respondents: James E. Seykora, County Attorney, Hardin, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: - /If.W/ erk March 3, 1980 APR 1 - 1& 9 J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. T h i s i s a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of p r o h i b i t i o n , s u p e r visory control, o r other appropriate r e l i e f i n the dissolut i o n of a m a r r i a g e between members of t h e Crow T r i b e . Respondent f i l e d a memorandum b r i e f opposing t h e p e t i t i o n , and upon r e c e i v i n g a r e p l y b r i e f from p e t i t i o n e r , w e assume j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r d e c i s i o n a l p u r p o s e s w i t h o u t o r a l argument. P e t i t i o n e r Donald S t e w a r t f i l e d a d i v o r c e a c t i o n a g a i n s t Tana C o r d e l i a S t e w a r t i n t h e T r i b a l C o u r t i n August 1979, r e q u e s t i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c o u p l e ' s two c h i l d r e n , Donald, a g e 3 , and Oli-Ann, age 2. There i s no showing of any s e r v i c e o f s a i d a c t i o n upon Tana n o r any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t a n y t h i n g occurred following p e t i t i o n e r ' s complaint. The p e t i t i o n e r s e t s f o r t h t h a t t h e Crow T r i b e n e v e r ceded j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t h e S t a t e of Montana b u t h a s i t s own d i v o r c e code a d o p t e d by t h e T r i b e J u l y 8, 1978. I n October 1979 Tana f i l e d a d i v o r c e a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , a s k i n g f o r c u s t o d y of t h e two c h i l d r e n and $150 p e r month c h i l d support. A h e a r i n g was h e l d on t h e m a t t e r b e f o r e t h e Honor- a b l e Diane Barz, who o r d e r e d t h a t c a r e , c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l o f t h e c o u p l e ' s c h i l d r e n be g i v e n t o Tana d u r i n g pendency of t h e a c t i o n , t h a t a 1977 C h e v r o l e t t r u c k b e l o n g i n g t o Tana be r e t u r n e d t o h e r , and t h a t p e t i t i o n e r pay $150 p e r month s u p p o r t d u r i n g pendency of t h e a c t i o n . W e n o t e t h a t b o t h p e t i t i o n e r Donald and h i s w i f e Tana a r e e n r o l l e d members of t h e Crow T r i b e , a s a r e t h e i r c h i l d r e n , t h a t t h e y l i v e a t Crow Agency, Montana, w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r b o u n d a r i e s of t h e r e s e r v a t i o n , and t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s a r e employees of t h e Crow T r i b e . Donald f i l e d t h i s p e t i t i o n promptly a f t e r h i s w i f e f i l e d h e r d i v o r c e a c t i o n and a f t e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ref u s e d t o d i s m i s s T a n a ' s a c t i o n f o r l a c k o f s u b j e c t matter and p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . On October 26, 1979, t h e D i s - t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s motion t o d i s m i s s and assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e m a r r i a g e . P e t i t i o n e r a l l e g e s he h a s no speedy, a d e q u a t e remedy a t law, t h a t he i s f a c e d w i t h two s e p a r a t e a c t i o n s , and t h a t a n a p p e a l from t h e r u l i n g o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d o e s n o t o f f e r t h e p e t i t i o n e r a n a d e q u a t e remedy t o a v o i d d u p l i c i t o u s In addition, petitioner notes t h a t there i s a r e a l actions. p o s s i b i l i t y of h a v i n g c o n f l i c t i n g c u s t o d y d e c r e e s , t h e r e b y s u b j e c t i n g t h e c h i l d r e n t o continued custody l i t i g a t i o n . Tana a r g u e s t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e Crow T r i b e d o e s have a Law and Order Code c o v e r i n g d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s , t h a t code was n o t approved by t h e S e c r e t a r y o f I n t e r i o r and i s n o t valid. She a p p e a r s t o r e l y on a n o r d i n a n c e a d o p t e d i n 1953 by t h e Crow T r i b e t h a t gave j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t h e S t a t e of Montana. T h a t o r d i n a n c e was approved by t h e S e c r e t a r y of Interior. The i s s u e b e f o r e u s i s whether t h e T r i b a l C o u r t i s c u r r e n t l y exercising j u r i s d i c t i o n o r has exercised j u r i s d i c t i o n i n s u c h a manner a s t o preempt s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r members of t h e Crow T r i b e l i v i n g w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r b o u n d a r i e s of t h e Crow ~ e s e r v a t i o n . B e f o r e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e above i s s u e , w e must d i s p o s e o f t h e argument t h a t b e c a u s e t h e 1978 Crow Uniform Divorce Act was n o t s i g n e d by t h e S e c r e t a r y of I n t e r i o r , t h e Act i s n o t effective. W e f i n d on t h e b a s i s of a l e t t e r of t h e s o l i - c i t o r f o r t h e Department of I n t e r i o r d a t e d October 1 3 , 1976, t h a t no a p p r o v a l i s n e c e s s a r y . The S o l i c i t o r s t a t e d : "We recommend t h a t no a c t i o n be t a k e n e i t h e r t o approve o r d i s a p p r o v e o f t h e o t h e r t h r e e Crow s i n c e -- T r i b a l C o n s t i t u t h e Crow Ordinances. t i o n d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h e i r a p p r o v a l b~ the --Department -r- - t o become e f f e c t i v e . Departf o them m e n t a l a c t i o n , a c c o r d i n g l y , e i t h e r way would be a g r a t u i t o u s a c t without l e g a l significance. Our d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t no a p p r o v a l i s r e q u i r e d would n o t , o f c o u r s e , f o r e c l o s e t h e Department from t a k i n g a p o s i t i o n i n any s u b s e q u e n t litig a t i o n challenging t h e v a l i d i t y of these ordin a n c e s . W e s h o u l d e v a l u a t e e a c h such l a w s u i t on a case-by-case b a s i s , and might d e c i d e t o s u p p o r t t r i b a l a u t h o r i t y i n t h e a b s e n c e of Departmental a p p r o v a l o f t h e s e o r d i n a n c e s . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) Memorandum of S o l i c i t o r t o S e c r e t a r y of Department of I n t e r i o r , Octob e r 1 3 , 1976, p. 2. . . W n o t e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n i t s b r i e f c i t e d 25 e S11.1, C.F.R. Interior. a s r e q u i r i n g a p p r o v a l by t h e Department of Such a p p r o v a l i s n o t r e q u i r e d once a t r i b e h a s e n a c t e d a law and o r d e r code t o r e p l a c e t h e C.F.R. sions. 25 C.F.R. ll.l(d). provi- The Crow T r i b e h a s a d o p t e d a comprehensive t r i b a l code and, t h e r e f o r e , i s n o t governed by t h e p r o v i s i o n s of 25 C.F.R. §11. cerning s e c r e t a r i a l approval, [25 C.F.R. The S o l i c i t o r n o t e d con- ". . . However, t h a t Section l l . l ( e ) ] i n o u r view a p p l i e s o n l y t o m o d i f i c a - t i o n s of t h e C . F . R a d m i n i s t e r a C.F.R. code ( w h i l e t h e Department c o n t i n u e s t o ' C o u r t of I n d i a n O f f e n s e s ' ) and d o e s n o t b a r t h e t r i b e from e x e r c i s i n g i t s governmental power t o a d o p t a s e p a r a t e code and t o e s t a b l i s h a t r i b a l c o u r t w i t h o u t S e c r e t a r i a l c o n s e n t . " Memorandum of S o l i c i t o r , s u p r a , p. 6 , f o o t n o t e 8. Here, t h e p r o v i s i o n s r e l i e d on by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t q u e s t i o n i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e t r i b a l code a r e i n a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e Crow T r i b e . The Crow T r i b a l Code, b e i n g found d u l y e n a c t e d , g i v e s t h e Crow T r i b a l C o u r t e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e d i s s o l u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e a c t i o n s between members r e s i d i n g w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r b o u n d a r i e s of t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . Having so found here, unlike our finding in ~arrivee v. Morigeau (1979), Mont. , 602 P.2d 563, 36 St-Rep. 1798, under the principles of comity we should abstain and leave to the Tribal Court the decisional task of divorce matters between tribal members of the Crow Tribe. In so doing, we should reduce the "inter-governmental friction" likening the "competing interests" of the State and the tribes to a "Pullman type abstension situation." Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co. (1941), 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971. See also, Fisher v. District Court (1976), 424 U.S. 382, 96 S.Ct. 943, 47 L.Ed.2d 106. This Court in State ex rel. Iron Bear v. Dist. Ct. (1973)r 162 Mont. 335, 512 P.2d 1292, held: "Before a District Court can assume jurisdiction in any matter submitted to it, it must find subject matter jurisdiction by determining: (1) whether federal treaties and statutes applicable have preempted state jurisdiction; (2) whether the exercise of state jurisdiction would interfere with reservation self-government; and (3) whether the Tribal Court is currently exercising jurisdiction or has exercised jurisdiction in such a manner as to preempt state jurisdiction." 162 Mont. at 346, 512 P.2d at 1299. It would appear from the material submitted that the Tribal Court, since the adoption of 1978 Crow Uniform Divorce Act, is exercising exclusive jurisdiction over its tribal members living on the reservation. This being the case, we find that Williams v. Lee (1959), 358 U.S. 217, 79 S.Ct. 269, 3 L.Ed.2d 251, is controlling. The Court held in ". . . to allow the exercise of state jurisdiction Williams: here would undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs and hence would infringe on the right of the Indians to govern themselves." 358 U.S. at 223, 79 For t h e a b o v e - s t a t e d r e a s o n s and a f t e r a c a r e f u l cons i d e r a t i o n of t h e a p p l i c a b l e law, we h o l d t h a t p r o h i b i t i o n i s t h e p r o p e r remedy i n t h i s c a s e and w e o r d e r t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n , Cause No. DR-79-114, e n t i t l e d " I n R e t h e M a r r i a g e of Tana C o r d e l i a S t e w a r t and Donald S t e w a r t , J r . " I n s o doing, w e hold t h i s r u l i n g i s l i m i t e d i n e f f e c t t o t h e Crow I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n . W concur: e ?AJ & J-h Chief J u s t i c e

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.