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: September 15, 1981
Decided: November 12, 1981
Filed: o v 1? 1981
%9.
Clerk
Mr. 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.
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 . The
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 . 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 t e s t of
S t a t e e x r e l . I r o n Bear v. 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 ,
5 1 2 P.2d 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
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 .
C 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 . The
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 t r i c t C o u r t s have j u r i s d i c t i o n
o v e r members o f t h e N o r t h e r n Cheyenne T r i b e ,
residing within t h e b o u n d a r i e s of t h a t
reservation, in a c t i o n s to dissolve marriages?"
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
J u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s c o u r t .. .I1
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 t e s t o f S t a t e ex r e l . I r o n B e a r v.
District Court, supra. 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. 5 1321 e t seq. F i s h e r v.
~ i s t r i c t o u r t ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 424 U.S.
C 3 8 2 , 96 S . C t . 9 4 3 , 47 L.Ed.2d
106. 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
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 ) , Mont.
,-
I
(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 mem-
b 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: The I n f r i n g e m e n t -
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. 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