14 NICS App. 37, TARAYA v. TARAYA (July 2016)
IN THE PUYALLUP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
PUYALLUP INDIAN RESERVATION
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
In Re The Marriage of:
Leonardo Taraya, Petitioner/Appellant,
v.
Jamie Taraya, Respondent/Appellee.
NO. PUY-CV-DISS-2014-0008 (July 19, 2016)
SYLLABUS*
Appellant argued trial court did not have the authority to enter award of spousal maintenance in the dissolution proceedings he was a party to. Court of Appeals found that the tribal code does not set forth spousal maintenance as a right granted by statute. However, tribal code states that the tribal court is a court of general jurisdiction. Court of Appeals ruled that trial court acted within its authority as a court of general jurisdiction and affirmed the order to award spousal maintenance.
|
Before: |
Randy A. Doucet, Chief Judge; Jerry R. Ford, Judge; Gregory M. Silverman, Judge. |
|
Appearances: |
Mark Hurdelbrink for Appellant; Appellee did not appear in person or through counsel. |
OPINION
Ford, J.:
The sole issue in this case concerns the authority of the Puyallup Tribal Court to order the payment of Spousal Maintenance in a dissolution proceeding. We find that the inherent power of the Puyallup Tribal Court (Trial Court) as a court of general jurisdiction pursuant to Puyallup Tribal Code 4.16.130 allows the Trial Court to fashion remedies necessary to reach a just decision.
14 NICS App. 37, TARAYA v. TARAYA (July 2016) p. 38
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Leonardo Taraya (Husband) commenced this action in the Trial Court for dissolution of his marriage with Jamie Taraya (Wife). After several contested hearings, the Trial Court entered final orders including a provision for spousal maintenance from the Husband to the Wife1
ISSUE
DOES THE PUYALLUP TRIBAL CODE SECTION 7.08.250 PROVIDE FOR SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE AS A PROPERTY RIGHT AND IF NOT UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY CAN THE TRIAL COURT AWARD MAINTENANCE IN A DISSOLUTION PROCEEDING?
SCOPE OF REVIEW
The duties of this Court are set forth in Puyallup Tribal Code 4.16.400:
4.16.400 Considerations governing reversal, modification, or remand of trial court decision.
Except as provided, the decision of the trial court will be reversed, modified or remanded only:
a) Where there has been an abuse of discretion that prevented a party from receiving a fair trial;
b) Where there has been misconduct by the prosecution, Judge or jury;
c) Where there has been error as to interpretation and/or application of the law by the Judge;
d) Where the verdict or decision is contrary to the law and the evidence;
e) Where there has been newly discovered evidence that was not available at the time of the trial.
The Appellant, by statement of counsel at oral argument, is only raising PTC 4.16.400 (c) by alleging an error as to interpretation and/or application of the law by the trial Judge as to the authority of the Trial Court to enter an award of spousal maintenance in this dissolution. Our review will proceed on that limited basis. The issue involved here is one solely of law and as such, this court will review it de novo.
DICUSSION
Puyallup Tribal Code 7.08.250 states:
7.08.250 Settlement of property rights-Custody and care of children.
14 NICS App. 37, TARAYA v. TARAYA (July 2016) p. 39
Each divorce decree shall provide for a fair and just settlement of property rights between the parties, and also for the custody and proper care of the minor children.
A code provision clear on its face requires no interpretation. Pac. Cont’l Bank v. Soundview 90, LLC, 273 P.3d 1009, 1014 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). While PTC 7.08.250 provides that every divorce decree shall provide for distribution of property and care and custody of children, it does not specifically mention spousal maintenance and more importantly, does not limit the Trial Court from making other provisions necessary to complete the dissolution. Spousal maintenance is not set forth as a property right in PTC 7.08.250t nor in any other section of current Puyallup Tribal Code and we decline to hold that the tribal code sets forth spousal maintenance as a right granted by statute.
There being no existing Puyallup Code provision concerning spousal maintenance, the next step is to examine the nature of the Trial Court and what inherent powers it possesses in order to render fair decisions in the cases coming before it. The Puyallup Tribal Judicial Code provides clear guidance as to the nature of the powers available to it. Puyallup Tribal Code 4.16.130 states:
4.16.130 Jurisdiction.
The Tribal Court is a court of general jurisdiction over all matters, except as limited by Tribal Law, in all areas and to the full extent permitted by Article I of the Constitution of the Puyallup Tribe.
There being no established code provision prohibiting the awarding of spousal maintenance, it is clearly within the equitable powers of the Trial Court to award spousal maintenance in dissolution proceedings given its powers as a court of general jurisdiction and the fundamental necessity for the application of spousal maintenance as one judicial tool in the termination of marriage.
CONCLUSION
The Trial Court having clearly acted within its authority as a court of general jurisdiction to award spousal maintenance, the order to award the same is hereby AFFIRMED for the reasons stated herein.
The syllabus is not a part of the Court’s Opinion. The syllabus is a summary of the Opinion prepared by the publishers of this reporter only for the convenience of the reader. Therefore, the syllabus should not be cited in whole or part as legal authority. Only the Opinion, which follows the syllabus, may be cited as legal authority.
In Oral Argument, Counsel for Appellant stipulated that if this court found that the trial court had the authority to order maintenance, then the spousal maintenance order as to amount and duration was clearly in the discretion of the trial court and is not the subject of the current appeal.