STANDING BEAR v BELCOURT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-390 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA THE ESTATE OF DOUGLAS J. STANDING BEAR, Deceased, by and through CORRINE BILLY, Personal Representative, Plaintiff and Appellant, GERALD BELCOURT, JEAN BELCOURT, and LEOTA M. STANDING BEAR, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, In and for the County of Hill. Honorable B.W. Thomas, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Altman & Lilletvedt, Havre, Montana Frank Altman argued, Havre, Montana For Respondents: Wm. George Harris, Missoula, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: \I \\ :\ - 1981 June 16, 1981 Jd $ .. ICJg! lg Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . is Plaintiff the e s t a t e of Douglas J. order the of personal representative Standing Bear. District Court of the She a p p e a l s from an of the Twelfth Judicial D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e C o u n t y o f H i l l , d i s m i s s i n g f o r l a c k of subject matter jurisdiction her action in claim and d e l i v e r y t o r e c o v e r a r o a d g r a d e r a l l e g e d t o be p r o p e r t y o f the estate. D o u g l a s S t a n d i n g Bear was k i l l e d i n a c a r a c c i d e n t on J u l y 22, 1978. He was, and h i s t h r e e n a t u r a l c h i l d r e n a r e , e n r o l l e d members o f t h e Wind R i v e r Arapaho I n d i a n T r i b e i n H i s wife, Wyoming. his adopted members o f d e f e n d a n t Leota M. daughter, Teresa t h e Chippewa-Cree Standing Bear, Standing Bear, are and enrolled A t the t i m e T r i b e i n Montana. o f h i s d e a t h , d e c e d e n t , h i s w i f e , and t h r e e o f t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e d o m i c i l e d on t h e Rocky B o y ' s Indian Reservation. The f o u r t h c h i l d was l i v i n g i n H a v r e , Montana. On October 1, 1976, the Bureau of Indian Affairs a p p r o v e d an I n d i a n B u s i n e s s Development G r a n t t o d e c e d e n t i n t h e amount o f $30,000 f o r t h e p u r c h a s e o f a motor g r a d e r s o that he could s t a r t a private contracting business. The g r a n t r e q u i r e d t h a t d e c e d e n t o b t a i n 60 p e r c e n t o f the cost of for the grader received a from $54,000 other loan sources. from the He applied F i r s t National and Bank of H a v r e and a g u a r a n t y f o r t h a t l o a n f r o m t h e S m a l l B u s i n e s s Administration. The Havre bank security interest in the grader. c r e d i t l i f e insurance policy paid obtained a perfected Upon d e c e d e n t ' s d e a t h , the a loan balance t o the bank. On A u g u s t 9 , 1 9 7 8 , upon a p p l i c a t i o n o f L e o t a S t a n d i n g Bear (decedent's widow), she was representative of her husband's placed District Court in District, the County subsequently Court dated of by of May as and Twelfth M. Standing of 7, the Judicial Bear state 1979, personal jurisdiction the orders 11, 1 9 7 9 , April estate Leota Hill. restrained appointed and was District October 4, 1 9 7 9 , from d i s p o s i n g o f a n y p r o p e r t y b e l o n g i n g t o t h e e s t a t e of Douglas J. Standing Bear. removed the her as personal decedent's On O c t o b e r 4 , 1 9 7 9 , t h e c o u r t representative for natural children, cause. Corr ine One o f Billy, was t h e r e a f t e r appointed p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e e s t a t e . On A u g u s t 2 3 , 1 9 7 8 , L e o t a M . the Tribal appointed Court the administrator p r o c e e d i n g s were Bear, of had Chippewa-Cree of in S t a n d i n g Bear p e t i t i o n e d decedent's that court Tribe estate. by Leota and was Subsequent M. Standing i n t h e e s t a t e o f D o u g l a s J . S t a n d i n g B e a r , and on J u n e 1 8 , 1979, t h e T r i b a l Court g r a n t e d her ownership of c e r t a i n a s s e t s o f d e c e d e n t l o c a t e d a t t h a t t i m e on t h a t r e s e r v a t i o n , including the Caterpillar motor grader. All of these p r o c e e d i n g s and o r d e r s w e r e made e x p a r t e w i t h o u t any n o t i c e t o any i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n s , i n c l u d i n g any of d e c e d e n t ' s o t h e r heirs or potential heirs. On March 1 0 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e T r i b a l C o u r t made and e n t e r e d a n o r d e r v a c a t i n g a l l p r i o r o r d e r s made i n t h e m a t t e r o f t h e estate of Douglas Standing Bear for the reason that the T r i b a l C o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e e s t a t e s i n c e decedent was not an enrolled member of the Chippewa-Cree Tribe. A t t h e time of d e c e d e n t ' s d e a t h , t h e r o a d g r a d e r was l o c a t e d on t h e F o r t Peck I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n . I t was moved t o t h e Rocky B o y ' s Bear Reservation. Defendant Leota then s o l d t h e grader t o her b r o t h e r , Belcourt, Standing defendant Gerald f o r $ 1 2 5 , who i n t u r n s o l d i t f o r $70,000 t o an unknown p a r t y . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t o u t o f B e l c o u r t g a v e L e o t a S t a n d i n g Bear the proceeds, t h e sum o f $ 2 2 , 0 0 0 ; k e p t $ 6 , 0 0 0 f o r h i m s e l f ; and d e p o s i t e d t h e sum o f $ 4 2 , 0 0 0 i n t h e Montana Bank o f B r o w n i n g , Montana, h i s wife, Jean Belcourt. i n h i s name and t h a t o f A l l defendants in this action are e n r o l l e d members o f t h e Chippewa-Cree T r i b e . Corrine estate, Billy, as representative of the b r o u g h t a c l a i m and d e l i v e r y a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r t h e grader or t h e proceeds of District which personal Court granted restrained its s a l e . plaintiff transfer of the On March 26, 1 9 8 0 , t h e a preliminary grader injunction its proceeds. or D e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n and a l s o a motion to continued quash the the hearing preliminary on those injunction. motions to The May court 28, 1980, combining t h e h e a r i n g w i t h t h e " p a r e n t " c a s e , P r o b a t e Cause No. 5 1 5 8 , E s t a t e of D o u g l a s J . S t a n d i n g B e a r , D e c e a s e d . On J u l y 2 4 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d t h a t i t had j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e p r o b a t e proceeding b u t t h a t it lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c l a i m and d e l i v e r y a c t i o n . I n denying jurisdiction, the grader t h e c o u r t noted t o o k p l a c e on t h e reservation, t h a t t h e s a l e of t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of t h e p r o c e e d s a r e d e p o s i t e d i n a bank on an I n d i a n r e s e r v a tion, and that the Chippewa-Cree Tribal Code claims j u r i s d i c t i o n of a l l c i v i l s u i t s whenever t h e d e f e n d a n t i s a tribal member. The District Court concluded that state j u r i s d i c t i o n would i n t e r f e r e w i t h t r i b a l g o v e r n m e n t and t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s remedy was t o s u e i n t h e T r i b a l C o u r t . P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s t h e f i n a l judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The sole concerns the issue presented subject matter to Court this jurisdiction of on appeal t h e c l a i m and d e l i v e r y a c t i o n by t h e s t a t e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . P l a i n t i f f c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d when i t h e l d it d i d n o t have s u b j e c t m a t t e r jurisdiction c l a i m and d e l i v e r y a c t i o n a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s . e t a1. v. Roy Court, using t h e r e were ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. the transactional sufficient 227, of the I n Crawford 577 P.2d 392, this test, held that analysis a c t i v i t i e s occurring outside the r e s e r v a t i o n t o i n v e s t t h e s t a t e c o u r t with j u r i s d i c t i o n and, a s s u c h , s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n c o u l d n o t be h e l d t o i n f r i n g e on t h e r i g h t s o f t h e r e s e r v a t i o n I n d i a n s t o make t h e i r own l a w s and t o be r u l e d by t h e i r own l a w s . In the instant case, Leota Standing Bear invoked s t a t e c o u r t j u r i s d i c t i o n when s h e p e t i t i o n e d f o r t h e p r o b a t e of her deceased husband's e s t a t e . A t t h e t i m e of d e c e d e n t ' s d e a t h , t h e g r a d e r was n o t l o c a t e d on t h e Rocky B o y ' s R e s e r v a t i o n ; and f u r t h e r , d e f e n d a n t s G e r a l d and J e a n B e l c o u r t a r e r e s i d e n t s o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana. to appellant, analysis test These f a c t s , are sufficient to meet and, therefore, confer the according transactional jurisdiction on the that has s t a t e court. There is no federal treaty or statute preempted j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . t h e T r i b a l Court has n o t , tion in preempted this case. Distr i c t and i s n o t , Therefore, Court exercising jurisdic- the Tribal jur isd i c t i o n Furthermore, but, Court has in fact, not has conceded that jurisdiction lies with the state District C o u r t and w i l l s u p p o r t and e n f o r c e t h e s t a t e c o u r t ' s f i n a l order. A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t , by e n t e r i n g i n t o a s a l e o f t h e grader, respondents committed the torts of fraud and conversion against appellant. S i n c e s u c h t o r t i o u s a c t s were directed being against an estate administered in state c o u r t , and s i n c e s u c h d e l i b e r a t e a c t i o n was t a k e n t o d e p r i v e the state court plain error of t o hold its lawful that jurisdiction, remedial i t would a c t i o n does not lie be in s t a t e court. Respondents d i d n o t appear i n t h i s Court a t t h e time set for oral arguments. The the following general indicates brief filed by position. respondents The state is p r e c l u d e d by f e d e r a l p r e e m p t i o n and t h e e x e r c i s e o f p l e n a r y power of the exercising matters. United States jurisdiction Exclusive Indian tribes Indian in over estate and jurisdiction over estate from probate and probate p r o c e e d i n g s r e s p e c t i n g d e s c e n t and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a s s e t s o f an Indian is v e s t e d f e d e r a l law. e t seq.; 83-280, in the S e c r e t a r y of S e e , 25 U.S . C . and 43 C.F.R. 67 STAT 588; 2016. by -2 s e e a l s o Pub. L . No. S 1 3 6 0 ( b ) ; and S t a t e e x r e l . Three I r o n s v. Three I r o n s ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 476, 37 S t . R e p . Interior S372 e t s e q . ; 25 C.F.R. SS4.200 e t s e q . ; 28 U.S.C. the Mon t . , 6 2 1 P.2d Respondents argue t h a t t h e following reservation "contacts" are s u f f i c i e n t t o defeat s t a t e court jurisdiction: 1. The p r i n c i p a l h e i r s of Douglas J . S t a n d i n g Bear r e s i d e d a t t h e t i m e o f h i s d e a t h on t h e Rocky R o y ' s R e s e r v a tion; 2. The p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f business for the grading s e r v i c e was on t h e Rocky B o y ' s R e s e r v a t i o n ; The c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h e d e c e d e n t u n d e r - 3. t o o k w e r e w i t h t h e B u r e a u o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s , t o be p e r f o r m e d on I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n s ; 4. The e q u i p m e n t and records of t h e b u s i n e s s were l o c a t e d on t h e F o r t Peck I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n ; The 5. income d e r i v e d from s e r v i c e s performed on Indian reservations; An 6. administrative ongoing under D a n i e l S. law probate proceeding was A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law J u d g e , and BOOS, b o t h a p p e l l a n t and r e s p o n d e n t s h a v e n o t i c e t h e r e o f ; of SS11.1 e t s e q . , Under 2 5 C.F.R. 7. Indian Offenses, heirs determine any divide decedent's and spouse, claimed heir through a Court may bring suit decedent' s 23, on A u g u s t property s o u g h t and 1978, and to that invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t h a t e f f e c t ; and 8. More jurisdiction was, by the importantly, over the Court by o r d e r of March 10, 1980, f i l e d p r o b a t e and e s t a t e p r o c e e d i n g s of 1ndia.n Offenses, attempted to be conceded t o t h e s t a t e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . The b r i e f s and D i s t r i c t C o u r t f i l e h e r e i n a r e v a g u e and d i f f i c u l t t o f o l l o w . Leota M. Standing appointment of decedent's Bear with Judicial District. t i v e t h a t same d a y . tered in filed personal estate Rocky B o y ' s I t a p p e a r s t h a t on A u g u s t 9 , 1 9 7 8 , an application representative the District for in Court informal intestacy of of the Twelfth S h e was a p p o i n t e d p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a Two weeks l a t e r , L e o t a a p p l i e d t o t h e R e s e r v a t i o n t o have d e c e d e n t ' s e s t a t e adminis- the Tribal Court. On A u g u s t 23, 1978, s h e was a p p o i n t e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r of t h e e s t a t e i n t h e T r i b a l C o u r t . On O c t o b e r 4 , a s personal 1 9 7 9 , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t removed L e o t a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and restrained her from f e r r i n g o r d i s p o s i n g of t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e e s t a t e . transSubse- q u e n t l y , on May 1 0 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e T r i b a l C o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r v a c a t i n g a l l p r i o r o r d e r s made i n t h e m a t t e r o f the Estate o f D o u g l a s J . S t a n d i n g Bear f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t i t d i d n o t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e e s t a t e b e c a u s e d e c e d e n t was n o t a member of t h e Chippewa-Cree Tribe. The T r i b a l C o u r t a l s o conceded j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t h e s t a t e . L e o t a was r e s t r a i n e d by o r d e r s o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d a t e d A p r i l 11, 1 9 7 9 , May 7 , 1 9 7 9 , and O c t o b e r 4 , 1979, from d i s p o s i n g of any p r o p e r t y b e l o n g i n g t o t h e e s t a t e , i n c l u d i n g t h e g r a d e r which i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . However, a s stated previously, 1979, o r d e r , turn sold personal Leota, sometime a f t e r t h e October 4, s o l d t h e g r a d e r t o h e r b r o t h e r G e r a l d , who i n it to a nonresident. representative, On March appellant herein, 14, 1980, the f i l e d an a c t i o n f o r c l a i m and d e l i v e r y o f t h e g r a d e r . Respondents filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A s i m i l a r m o t i o n was a l s o made i n the probate proceeding. Both m o t i o n s w e r e t r i e d on May 2 8 , 1 9 8 0 , i n s o f a r a s t h e y i n v o l v e d some o f t h e same p a r t i e s and t h e same f a c t u a l m a t t e r s . On J u l y 2 4 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d anomalous that it had results subject matter proceeding but that it d i d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d jurisdiction over the n o t have s u b j e c t m a t t e r probate juris- d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c l a i m and d e l i v e r y a c t i o n b e c a u s e s u c h a n e x e r c i s e would i n t e r f e r e w i t h r e s e r v a t i o n s e l f - g o v e r n m e n t . In the longstanding case of United S t a t e s ex rel. Riggs v. J o h n s o n County ( 1 8 6 8 ) , 6 W a l l . t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d : 1 6 6 , 1 8 L.Ed. ". .. 768, Jurisdiction i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e power t o h e a r and d e t e r m i n e t h e s u b j e c t matter i n c o n t r o v e r s y i n t h e s u i t b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , and t h e r u l e i s u n i v e r s a l , t h a t i f t h e power is conferred t o render i t a l s o i n c l u d e s t h e power t h e judgment o r e n t e r t h e d e c r e e , t o i s s u e p r o p e r p r o c e s s t o e n f o r c e s u c h judgment o r d e c r e e . . ." F u r t h e r m o r e , i n S t a t e ex r e l . E i s e n h a u e r v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 1 7 ) , 54 Mont. 1 7 2 , 1 6 8 P. 522, t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t it has j u r i s d i c - i f a c o u r t h a s t h e power t o make a n o r d e r , tion t o enforce t h a t order. The purpose of probate is and equitable t r a n s f e r of e s t a t e property t o the proper h e i r s . The D i s - trict determined Court parent probate just it had over the In that proceeding. estate property, the an a t t e m p t t o p r o t e c t the the District jurisdiction Court issued orders against the decedent's wife, Leota. allegedly violated restraining L e o t a , however, t h o s e o r d e r s and s o l d t h e g r a d e r , which was p a r t o f t h e e s t a t e , t o h e r b r o t h e r . Contempt p r o c e e d i n g s were i n i t i a t e d , b u t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f i l e is v o i d of determination of recover the present claim jurisdiction the estate and of property, delivery this proceedings and, contempt m a t t e r . appellant action. action has In an attempt instituted The subject its roots in the any to the matter probate i t i s , none- even though f i l e d s e p a r a t e l y , t h e l e s s , t h e e n f o r c e m e n t arm t o r e c o v e r p r o p e r t y w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t , whose j u r i s d i c t i o n is n o t i n q u e s t i o n b u t c o n c e d e d by t h e T r i b a l C o u r t . Additionally, Court to be the when personal Leota applied to representative the of District decedent's estate, s h e e l e c t e d t o be g o v e r n e d by t h e l a w s o f Montana. She c a n n o t r e t r e a t t o t h e r e s e r v a t i o n , d i s p o s e o f p r o p e r t y contrary to s t a t e laws and be afforded T r i b a l C o u r t t o deny t h e s t a t e c o u r t o f enforce its rulings. protection of the its j u r i s d i c t i o n t o Such a n a c t i o n would make a sham o f probate proceedings. The a p p l i c a b l e r u l e s g o v e r n i n g d i c t i o n enunciated 1 6 2 Mont. of 335, in I r o n Bear v . 512 P.2d state jurisdiction self-government; and 1292 a r e : would i m p o s i t i o n of D i s t r i c t Court (1973), (1) whether t h e e x e r c i s e i n t erfere with ( 2 ) whether juris- the tribal reservation is cur- court r e n t l y exercising j u r i s d i c t i o n or 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 p r e e m p t s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n . This has b e e n a d e q u a t e l y a d d r e s s e d by C h i e f T r i b a l J u d g e M i t c h e l l i n h i s order dismissing t h i s matter matter jurisdiction and relinquishing subject t o t h e s t a t e D i s t r i c t Court a s follows: "This Court concedes t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y owned by D o u g l a s J . S t a n d i n g B e a r o r i n which h e had a n i n t e r e s t , which may h a v e b e e n o r i s l o c a t e d on t h e Rocky B o y ' s R e s e r v a t i o n , i s i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T w e l f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e o f M o n t a n -, - i- -a n d f o r t h e Counfiyof - - a- - n -Hill. A l l of t h e m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g t o t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y o f D o u g l a s J . S t a n d i n g Bear m u s t be r e s o l v e d by t h e s a i d C o u r t f o r t h e S t a t e o f M o n t a n a , ---------- o u r t o f I n d i a n and t h e C O f f e n s e s w i l l s u p p o r t t h e f i n a l o r d e r s of t h e S t a t e C o u r t and w i l l a s s i s t i n e n f o r c e m e n t o f o r d e r s of s a i d C o u r t i f r e q u i r e d . " (Emphasis supplied. ) The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court is r e v e r s e d , and t h e c a u s e remanded t o t h e s t a t e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. W e concur: ~ d* PM (7 $ 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.