96-499
No. 96-499
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1997
BALYEAT LAW, PC, as Trustee,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
vs.
GEORGINA BEVERLY PETTIT,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Lake,
The Honorable C.B. McNeil, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Regan Whitworth, Balyeat Law Offices, Missoula,
Montana
For Respondent:
Andrea J. Olsen, Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes, Tribal Legal Services, Pablo, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: January 9, 1997
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-499%20Opinion.htm (1 of 5)4/11/2007 1:55:40 PM
96-499
Decided: January 17, 1997
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a July 17, 1996 order of the Twentieth
Judicial District Court, Lake County, granting a motion to dismiss
the complaint which Balyeat Law, PC, as Trustee (Balyeat), filed
against Georgina Beverly Pettit (Pettit). We remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Background
On or about May 1, 1995, Balyeat filed its complaint in Lake
County Justice Court alleging that Pettit was indebted to Balyeat,
as Trustee for various creditors, for some $1,843.60, which,
according to the attachments to the complaint, consisted of goods
and services provided to Lyle R. Pettitt by health-care providers
located in Ronan and in Missoula, Montana. Pettit was served with
a copy of the complaint and a summons, and on June 14, 1995, the
Justice of the Peace entered a judgment after default against
Pettit for that sum plus interest and costs.
On January 16, 1996, Pettit, by counsel, moved to set aside
the default judgment and filed a supporting brief under Rule
60(b)(4), M.R.Civ.P. Pettit contended that the Lake County Justice
Court had neither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction over her
since she was an enrolled member of the Confederated Salish &
Kootenai Tribes (Tribe) residing within the exterior boundaries of
the Flathead Reservation; because the debts were incurred by
Pettit's husband (both before and after their marriage); because
the debts were not owed by her nor did they involve a sum certain;
and because Balyeat was not a real party in interest and had,
allegedly, violated 37-61-408(1), MCA (prohibiting an attorney
from purchasing a debt for purposes of bringing an action thereon).
Balyeat filed its brief in opposition to Pettit's motion
disputing Pettit's allegations regarding jurisdiction; contending
that the court had jurisdiction over transactions involving Tribal
members; contending that the complaint did state a sum certain; and
arguing against the application of 37-61-410, MCA, and dismissal.
Attachments were included as to the issue involving 37-61-410,
MCA. A reply brief was filed by Pettit and both Balyeat and Pettit
also filed supplemental briefs. On February 27, 1996, the Justice
of the Peace denied Pettit's motion without any memorandum of
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-499%20Opinion.htm (2 of 5)4/11/2007 1:55:40 PM
96-499
opinion or rationale stated.
Pettit appealed to the District Court; briefs were filed
directed to the jurisdictional issue; and within a few days of the
filing of Pettit's reply brief, the court entered its order
granting Pettit's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The
court did not support its order with any memorandum of opinion or
rationale. This appeal followed.
Discussion
The record on appeal does not reflect that there were any
evidentiary hearings in either the Justice or District Court; there
were no affidavits filed by either party; the only facts we have
are those that can be gleaned from the allegations in and
attachments to the initial complaint and from the statements of
counsel in the briefs; we have not been furnished with any fruits
of discovery; there are no findings of fact; and we have no basis
for determining the legal authority or rationale upon which either
the Justice of the Peace or the District Judge reached their
opposite decisions.
On the record aforementioned, Balyeat requests this Court, on
appeal, to resolve issues involving the jurisdiction of Montana
state courts over a person who claims to be a member of an Indian
tribe apparently residing on the reservation for debts of her
husband allegedly incurred for medical care both on and off the
reservation, some prior to their marriage and some after their
marriage. Balyeat's opening brief contends that we should "further
[refine] the law regarding jurisdiction of the courts of Montana,"
and it relies primarily on our decision in Crawford v. Roy (1978),
176 Mont. 227, 577 P.2d 392, which, by reason of Roy's status as an
attorney and the specific facts of that case may have only marginal
applicability to what appear to be the facts here. Balyeat also
argues that Pettit is liable for the debts of her husband for
necessary medical care under 40-2-106, 205-207 and 210, MCA.
Pettit's answer brief relies for the most part on broad
principles of federal Indian law and Tribal sovereignty and on what
she contends is the exclusivity of the jurisdiction of the Tribal
Court in cases such as this. She disputes the applicability of the
Montana case and statutory law cited by Balyeat.
Balyeat contends that Montana state courts have jurisdiction
over Pettit and over all of the debts or accounts attached to its
complaint; Pettit maintains that the state courts have no personal
or subject matter jurisdiction in this case whatsoever. We believe
that the correct result may lie somewhere in between.
The District Court's determination that it did not have
jurisdiction over this case is a conclusion of law for which our
review is plenary. Highlands Golf Club v. Ashmore (1996), 922 P.2d
469, 472, 53 St.Rep. 664, 665.
In this case we are asked to resolve (or, as Balyeat suggests,
"refine") complicated questions involving Indian law and the
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-499%20Opinion.htm (3 of 5)4/11/2007 1:55:40 PM
96-499
jurisdiction of Montana's state courts over a person who appears to
be a member of an Indian tribe residing on the reservation, for
debts incurred by her husband (who has never been named in the
suit), for medical goods and services which he apparently incurred
both before and after the parties' marriage, both on and off the
reservation, which debts have been assigned to a law firm, as
trustee, and which is the named plaintiff and real party in
interest in the underlying collection action. We are asked to
perform this task on the basis of a record that is completely
devoid of any affidavits, hearing testimony or discovery
establishing what the facts actually are; that contains no
memorandum of opinion or rationale of the court whose decision we
are requested to either affirm, modify or reverse; and on the basis
of briefs that argue sweeping principles of law with little
analysis of or application to what appears to be the complicated
factual scenario summarized above.
Given the complexity and sensitivity of legal issues involving
the assertion of state court jurisdiction over reservation Indians
in civil matters, we are mindful that our decision in any case such
as this--whichever way we rule--will, necessarily, have important
ramifications throughout this State and will undoubtedly impact
Indians and non-Indians, businesses (both on and off the
reservation), and the court systems of two different sovereign
governments.
In the context of the record presented to this Court on appeal
--or, rather, the lack thereof--and because of the broad legal
positions taken by the parties (legal positions that effectively
take a broadax to apparent facts that should be treated with a
scalpel), we conclude that this case is not ready for appellate
review. Given the importance, complexity and sensitivity of cases
such as this, and being put in a position of either having to make
what may be bad law on a poor record or, alternatively, no law at
all, we elect the latter. Accordingly, we decline to review this
case further at this time.
This case is remanded to the District Court with instructions
that a factual record appropriate to the dispositive issue or
issues be developed; that the trial court render findings of fact,
conclusions of law and a memorandum of opinion or rationale on the
basis of that record in support of whatever decision it makes; and
that in any further appeal of this case to this Court, the parties'
briefs will cite and argue legal authorities that pertain to the
specific factual record so developed and the decision ultimately
rendered by the trial court. Finally, any future appellant is
reminded that
[i]t is the duty of a party seeking review of a judgment,
order or proceeding to present the supreme court with a
record sufficient to enable it to rule upon the issues
raised. Failure to present the court with a sufficient
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-499%20Opinion.htm (4 of 5)4/11/2007 1:55:40 PM
96-499
record on appeal may result in dismissal of the appeal
and/or the imposition of some other appropriate sanction.
Rule 9(a), M.R.App.P.
Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
We Concur:
/S/ J. A. TURNAGE
/S/ WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.
/S/ JIM REGNIER
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-499%20Opinion.htm (5 of 5)4/11/2007 1:55:40 PM