MARRIAGE OF LIMPY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-107 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RAYMOND S. LIMPY, Petitioner and Respondent, and JUDITH ROSE LIMPY, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Big Horn. Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: D. Michael Eakin argued, Legal Services, Miles City, Montana Steven Bunch argued, Legal Services, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Clarence T. Belue argued, Hardin, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: o v 1? 1981 %9. Clerk September 15, 1981 November 12, 1981 C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. Mr. The q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s case is w h e t h e r a s t a t e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n Montana h a s 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 o v e r a m a r r i a g e d i s s o l u t i o n a c t i o n i n which b o t h p a r e n t s a n d t h e m i n o r c h i l d a r e e n r o l l e d members o f t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne T r i b e r e s i d i n g o n t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n . D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d i t had j u r i s d i c t i o n . The W reverse. e J u d i t h Rose Limpy and Raymond Limpy a r e e n r o l l e d members o f t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne ~ r i b e . They were m a r r i e d on ~ p r i l1 5 , 1 9 8 0 , i n H a r d i n , M o n t a n a , which is l o c a t e d o u t s i d e t h e e x t e r i o r b o u n d a r i e s o f t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n . The m i n o r c h i l d o f t h e p a r t i e s , R o b b i e Ray Limpy, and h i s p a r e n t s a l l r e s i d e 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 . On S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 1 9 8 0 , Raymond ~ i m p yf i l e d a p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e m a r r i a g e and c u s t o d y o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f Big Horn C o u n t y . J u d i t h Rose Limpy w a s s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s w i t h i n t h e R e s e r v a t i o n and s i g n e d a n acknowledgement of s e r v i c e . The case came o n f o r t r i a l o n O c t o b e r 28 and t h e r e a f t e r t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d a home s t u d y made by a s o c i a l w o r k e r of Rosebud C o u n t y , M o n t a n a , who recommended b o t h p a r e n t s as f i t and p r o p e r c u s t o d i a n s o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d . Custody o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d was awarded to Raymond Limpy by a d e c r e e of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , d a t e d March 2 , 1 9 8 1 . J u d i t h Rose Limpy f i l e d a n o t i c e of a p p e a l from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e c r e e r a i s i n g t h e s o l e i s s u e of 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 of t h e s t a t e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . A p p e l l a n t w i f e c o n t e n d s t h a t under t h e t h r e e - p a r t S t a t e e x r e l . I r o n Bear v. 5 1 2 P.2d t e s t of D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 3 ) r 1 6 2 Mont. 3 3 5 , 1 2 9 2 , t h e S t a t e may n o t e x e r c i s e s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s - d i c t i o n o v e r d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s cases i n v o l v i n g T r i b a l members r e s i d i n g o n t h e R e s e r v a t i o n b e c a u s e (1) c o n t r o l o f d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s i s a n a s p e c t o f s o v e r e i g n t y n o t w i t h d r a w n by t r e a t y or s t a t u t e , and ( 2 ) e x e r c i s e o f S t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s o f R e s e r v a t i o n r e s i d e n t s is a n i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h T r i b a l self-government. The T r i b a l C o u r t h a s e x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n i n l i k e cases i n s u c h a manner as to p r e e m p t S t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n . A p p e l l a n t w i f e a l s o m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e of a b s t e n t i o n s h o u l d be f o l l o w e d i n d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s c a s e s and t h a t t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d d e f e r t o t h e a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n of t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne A p p e l l a t e C o u r t i n W o l f b l a c k v . W o l f b l a c k i s s u e d J u n e 7 , 1 9 7 9 , b e c a u s e i t is t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne A p p e l l a t e C o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f T r i b a l law. Appellant wife a l s o maintains t h a t the S t a t e District C o u r t l a c k e d i n p e r s o n a m j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r h e r and t h e m i n o r c h i l d b e c a u s e t h e n e c e s s a r y minimum c o n t a c t s were n o t p r e s e n t . Respondent husband, on t h e o t h e r hand, a r g u e s t h a t o u r d e c i s i o n i n Bad Horse v. Bad H o r s e ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 3 Mont. 4 4 5 , 517 p.2d 8 9 3 , h o l d i n g t h a t t h e S t a t e c o u r t had s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i s d i s p o s i t i v e o f t h i s case. He argues t h a t the o n l y f a c t d i s t i n g u i s h i n g t h i s case from --s e is t h e s u b s e q u e n t Bad H o r a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n o f t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne A p p e l l a t e C o u r t which h e a r g u e s s h o u l d n o t be f o l l o w e d b e c a u s e t h e T r i b a l C o u r t h a s u s u r p e d l e g i s l a t i v e powers r e s e r v e d to t h e T r i b a l C o u n c i l by t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne C o n s t i t u t i o n . By way o f b a c k g r o u n d t o o u r d i s c u s s i o n a summary o f t h e a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n o f t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne C o u r t is n e c e s s a r y . A 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 was i n i t i a t e d b y Oran W o l f b l a c k i n C t h e Rosebud C o u n t y ~ i s t r i c t o u r t i n 1 9 7 9 . Josephine Wolfblack t h e n . f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e i n t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne T r i b a l C o u r t . She a p p e a r e d i n t h e S t a t e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and moved t o d i s m i s s t h a t a c t i o n f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . S t a t e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c e r t i f i e d t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n to t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne A p p e l l a t e C o u r t : " D o Montana D i s o v e r members o f residing within reservation, in t r i c t C o u r t s have j u r i s d i c t i o n t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne T r i b e , t h e b o u n d a r i e s of t h a t a c t i o n s to dissolve marriages?" The The T r i b a l C o u r t i s s u e d i t s a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n on J u n e 7 , 1 9 7 9 , concluding t h a t the T r i b a l Court has exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n over d i v o r c e a c t i o n s b e t w e e n I n d i a n s l i v i n g o n t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne Reservation. The T r i b a l C o u r t r e v i e w e d t h e T r i b a l Code and found t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r d i v o r c e s was g r a n t e d to t h e T r i b a l C o u r t by C h a p t e r 11, S e c t i o n 1, which p r o v i d e s : "The T r i b a l C o u r t o f t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne R e s e r v a t i o n s h a l l have j u r i s d i c t i o n of a l l s u i t s w h e r e i n t h e d e f e n d a n t is a member o f t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne T r i b e o f t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne Indian Reservation o r subject t o the .I1 J u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s c o u r t .. The T r i b a l C o u r t f u r t h e r d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Montana l a w was t o be a p p l i e d by t h e T r i b a l C o u r t t o m a r r i a g e and d i v o r c e cases a c c o r d i n g t o C h a p t e r 111, S e c t i o n 1 o f t h e T r i b a l Code. The T r i b a l C o u r t found t h a t a n y o t h e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e T r i b a l Code would c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e T r i b a l C o n s t i t u t i o n which g i v e s t h e T r i b e t h e power t o r e g u l a t e t h e d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s o f i t s members. Any p u r p o r t e d c e s s i o n o f j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e T r i b e to t h e S t a t e would v i o l a t e t h e T r i b a l C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s c o n t r o l l i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n , a c c o r d i n g to t h e c i t i n g p u b l i c L a w 280 and t h e I n d i a n C i v i l R i g h t s A c S 1321 e t seq. The a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n a l s o d i s c u s s e s t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e T r i b a l C o d e , p u b l i c p o l i c y , and --s e . Bad H o r We apply the three-part District Court, supra. t e s t o f S t a t e ex r e l . I r o n B e a r v. Montana h a s n o t o b t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne T r i b e u n d e r t h e a p p r o p r i a t e A c t s of C o n g r e s s , e i t h e r P u b l i c Law 280 o r i t s s u c c e s s o r , t h e I n d i a n C i v i l R i g h t s Act o f 1 9 6 8 , 25 U.S.C. ~ i s t r i c t o u r t ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 424 U.S. C 106. 5 1321 e t seq. 3 8 2 , 96 S . C t . F i s h e r v. 9 4 3 , 47 L.Ed.2d W h i l e it is n o t c l e a r , i n t h e l i g h t o f F i s h e r , w h e t h e r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t would d e t e r m i n e t h a t a T r i b a l e n a c t m e n t p r i o r t o 1 9 5 3 w h i c h p u r p o r t s to c e d e j u r i s d i c t i o n to t h e S t a t e , as is t h e case h e r e , would be d e f e a t e d by p u b l i c Law 280 o r t h e I n d i a n C i v i l R i g h t s A c t of 1 9 6 8 . Accordingly, we f o l l o w o u r p r e v i o u s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n -- t h a t S t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n I r o n Bear g r a n t e d b y t h e T r i b e p r i o r to 1 9 5 3 r e m a i n s u n a f f e c t e d b y t h o s e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s u n t i l s u c h t i m e a s t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t s p e a k s on t h e s u b j e c t . Is t h e e x e r c i s e of S t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r d o m e s t i c r e l a - t i o n s o f R e s e r v a t i o n r e s i d e n t s an i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h T r i b a l self-government? W e a p p l y t h e d o c t r i n e of a b s t e n t i o n a s w e d i d Mont. I i n S t a t e e x r e l . S t e w a r t v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 8 0 ) , (JYI 609 P.2d &37 S t . R e p . 6 3 5 . A c c o r d i n g l y , we d e f e r to t h e a d v i l , ,- s o r y o p i n i o n of N o r t h e r n Cheyenne A p p e l l a t e C o u r t h o l d i n g t h a t t h e T r i b a l C o u r t h a s 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 d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e a c t i o n s a r i s i n g be tween members o f t h e T r i b e r e s i d i n g within the Reservation. W e d e f e r to t h a t o p i n i o n on t h e b a s i s of comity b e l i e v i n g t h a t the T r i b a l Court should i n t e r p r e t T r i b a l l a w a s a m a t t e r o f p o l i c y and t h a t S t a t e c o u r t s s h o u l d a b s t a i n f r o m i n t e r p r e t i n g T r i b a l l a w to t h e c o n t r a r y i n c a s e s w h e r e t h e T r i b a l C o u r t h a s s p o k e n on t h e s u b j e c t . Our 1974 -Bad Horse d e c i - s i o n is e x p r e s s l y o v e r r u l e d s i n c e t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne A p p e l l a t e C o u r t a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n h a s now i n t e r p r e t e d T r i b a l l a w t o t h e contrary. Although t h e T r i b a l C o u r t h a s n o t attempted to e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s c a s e , it h a s e x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n i n l i k e c a s e s i n d i c a t i n g a d i s p o s i t i o n t o preempt S t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n . T h i s Court h a s been a s s u r e d by t h e a t t o r n e y f o r L e g a l S e r v i c e s t h a t t h e T r i b a l C o u r t of t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne T r i b e is f u n c t i o n i n g i n t h i s a r e a and t h u s p r o v i d i n g a forum f o r t r i b a l memb e r s t o a d j u d i c a t e d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s d i s p u t e s s o no vacuum e x i s t s i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e T r i b a l C o u r t i n d o m e s t i c r e l a tions cases. N o r e a s o n e x i s t s as a matter of p o l i c y why t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d assume j u r i s d i c t i o n to t h e e x c l u s i o n of t h e T r i b a l Court. I f t h e r e were no T r i b a l f o r u m , it is d i f f i c u l t to see how t h e e x e r c i s e of j u r i s d i c t i o n by a S t a t e c o u r t would i n f r i n g e on T r i b a l self-government. See S h e r i c k , S t a t e J u r i s d i c t i o n Over I n d i a n s a s a S u b j e c t o f F e d e r a l Common Law: P r e e m p t i o n T e s t ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 2 1 A r i z . L.Rev. 85. The I n f r i n g e m e n t T h i s is e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same c o n c l u s i o n r e a c h e d by t h i s C o u r t i n L i t t l e Horn S t a t e Bank v . S t o p s ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. 5 1 0 , 5 5 5 P.2d 2 1 1 , w h e r e t h e Crow T r i b e had p r o v i d e d no means o f e n f o r c i n g a S t a t e C o u r t j u d g m e n t and u n t i l it d i d t h e r e would be no i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h T r i b a l s e l f g o v e r n m e n t by t h e e x e r c i s e o f S t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h a t a r e a . I n v i e w o f o u r h o l d i n g on s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n , w e need n o t r e a c h t h e q u e s t i o n of p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r J u d i t h Rose Limpy and t h e m i n o r c h i l d . I n summary, w e h a v e a p p l i e d t h e d o c t r i n e of a b s t e n t i o n as a m a t t e r o f c o m i t y w i t h t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne T r i b e . Sound p u b l i c p o l i c y r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e T r i b a l C o u r t s should have t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i n t e r p r e t t h e i r T r i b a l C o n s t i t u t i o n and T r i b a l l a w where t h e I n d i a n T r i b e h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a f u n c t i o n i n g forum f o r t h e m s e l v e s t o ad j u d i c a t e c o n t r o v e r s i e s a£ f e c t i n g t h e c u s t o d y of t h e i r children. T h e r e i s no b a s i s f o r t h e S t a t e t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t would i n t e r f e r e w i t h T r i b a l s e l f - g o v e r n m e n t . The j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e c a u s e remanded t o t h a t c o u r t w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o e n t e r j u d g m e n t i n accordance with t h i s opinion. Chief J u s t i c e W e conc

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.