15 NICS App. 30, BRAGG v. KRISE (July 2017)
IN THE SQUAXIN ISLAND COURT OF APPEALS
SQUAXIN ISLAND INDIAN RESERVATION
SHELTON, WASHINGTON
Wyatt and Christine Bragg, Respondents/Appellants,
v.
John and Gloria Krise, Petitioners/Appellees.
NO. SQI-CV-2015-1510-0199 (July 20, 2017)
SYLLABUS*
Trial court placed lien on tribal member’s per capita payments to satisfy a judgment owed to appellees. Court of Appeals was unable to determine from record the legal authority upon which the trial court made decision that tribal member per capita is community property and that this absence of legal authority in the record is a clear error of law. Court of Appeals reversed trial court’s order placing lien and remands this matter for further proceedings.
|
Before: |
Randy A. Doucet, Chief Judge. |
|
Appearances: |
Wyatt and Christine Bragg, pro se; John and Gloria Krise, pro se. |
OPINION
Doucet, C.J.:
Before: Randy Doucet, Appellate Judge.1
THIS MATTER comes before the Squaxin Island Court of Appeals on appeal of a decision by the trial court placing a lien on a tribal member’s per capita payments to satisfy a judgment owed to the Appellees. Having considered the parties’ briefing, the relevant record and oral augments, the Court hereby REVERSES the trial court’s Order Placing Lien and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings for the reasons explained herein.
|
1. |
Background |
15 NICS App. 30, BRAGG v. KRISE (July 2017) p. 31
On August 15, 2016, John Krise, Sr. filed a petition against Wyatt Bragg “to have Wyatt pay money” to Mr. Krise for work not completed on Mr. Krise’s vehicle. On October 27, 2015, after a trial, a civil judgment was issued in favor of Mr. Krise for $1,020.77 and $25 in court costs. When Mr. Bragg did not voluntarily pay the judgment, Mr. Krise filed a “Petition for Lien on Per Cap”.2 The petition for lien, in addition to naming John Krise, Sr. as a petitioner, added his wife Gloria Krise as a petitioner. The petition for lien named Wyatt Bragg as the respondent, and also added his wife Christine L. Bragg as a respondent. The petition for lien was filed with the same case number, 2015-1510-0199, as the original petition starting the lawsuit between Mr. Krise and Mr. Bragg.
On October 25, 2016, a hearing was held on the “Petition for Lien on Per Cap”. John and Gloria Krise appeared at the hearing, but the Braggs did not. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners and issued an Order Placing Lien on Christine Bragg’s Squaxin Island tribal per capita payments to satisfy the judgment previously obtained by John Krise.
On November 1, 2016, the Braggs filed a “Petition for Lift Lien on Christine’s Per Cap”. In the petition to lift lien the Braggs claimed they were “not notified of the October 25, 2016 court date.” On April 11, 2017, the trial court re-heard the request to place a lien on Christine Bragg’s per capita payments. After hearing from the parties and considering their arguments, the trial court maintained its prior Order Placing Lien on Christine Bragg’s per capita that was issued on November 1, 2016. The Braggs have appealed the April 11, 2017 decision to maintain the November 1, 2016 Order Placing Lien. All parties were self-represented during the trial court proceedings and for the appeal.
2. Standard of Review
Squaxin Island Rules of Appellate Procedure, Chapter 4.32, govern this appeal. The Rules of Appellate Procedure do not set forth the Standard of Review for civil appeals. In the absence of a statutory Standard of Review, this Court adopts the clearly erroneous standard for errors of law. The Court of Appeals reviews issues of law de novo.3
3. Discussion
Appellants, the Braggs, raised four issues during oral arguments. Each issue is discussed below.
Issue 1. Whether the trial court made any evidentiary and procedural errors regarding the Civil Judgment Order issued on October 27, 2015.
The first issue raised by the Braggs is whether the trial court made any evidentiary and procedural errors during the October 27, 2015 trial on the initial petition. The petition for appeal filed by the Braggs was for “an appeal hearing of Court decision made on April 11, 2017 - order
15 NICS App. 30, BRAGG v. KRISE (July 2017) p. 32
dated November, 2016”.4 The stated purpose of the appeal was to have the order placing a lien on Christine Bragg’s per capita payments reviewed. At oral argument, Mr. Bragg argued that there were evidence and procedure errors committed by the trial court concerning the Civil Judgment Order issued on October 27, 2015 awarding Mr. Krise $1,020.77, to be paid by Mr. Bragg before December 1, 2015.
Under 4.32.030(A) “Any person who wishes to appeal the judgment of the Tribal Court shall notify the clerk within ten (10) days after the judgment is final.” Mr. Bragg had ten days from October 27, 2015 to appeal the Civil Judgment Order. The opportunity to appeal the Civil Judgment Order has expired. Mr. Bragg’s appeal is limited to review of the April 11, 2017 trial court decision regarding the lien on Christine Bragg’s per capita. The Civil Judgment Order issued on October 27, 2015 should be AFFIRMED.
Issue 2. Whether Christine Bragg was a proper party to the case for the purpose of placing a lien on her per capita.
The next issue concerns Christine Bragg being added as a party to the case for the purpose of placing a lien on her tribal per capita to satisfy the judgment owed by Mr. Bragg to Mr. Krise. This issue raises two questions of law. First, was Christine Bragg properly added as a party to the lawsuit after the Civil Judgment Order was issued? Second, are tribal per capita payments community property or separate property at the time the payments are issued by the Tribe?
The first question concerns the addition of Christine Bragg as a party to the case after the judgment was issued. The original petition starting the lawsuit listed the petitioner as John E. Krise and respondent as Wyatt Bragg.5 After issuance of the Civil Judgment Order, Mr. Krise filed a Petition for Lien on Per Cap under the same case number as the original petition initiating the lawsuit, 2015-1510-0199.6 In the Petition for Lien, two additional parties were added, Gloria Krise was added as a petitioner, and Christine Bragg was added as a respondent. The record shows that the significance of adding Christine Bragg as a party was to have the trial court place a lien on her tribal per capita payments she receives as a tribal member to pay the judgment owed to Mr. Krise.7 The Squaxin Island rules of civil procedure allow a complaining party to change the complaint without court permission any time before the responding party answers.8 After the defendant answers, the judge may allow plaintiff to change the complaint as long as the change does not prejudice or unreasonably burden defendant.9 Here, the judgment was already issued against Mr. Bragg, and Mr. Krise was attempting to collect on the judgment from Christine Bragg’s per capita payment. Neither the Order Placing Lien, nor the hearing recordings, contains any reference to the legal authority or legal analysis relied upon by the trial court in authorizing the addition of Christine Bragg as a party to the case.
15 NICS App. 30, BRAGG v. KRISE (July 2017) p. 33
The second question concerns whether the trial court was in error in determining that tribal member per capita payments are community property. The trial court determined that since the Braggs are married and it is “a community property state”, then Mr. Bragg’s judgment creditors are entitled to place a lien on Christine Bragg’s per capita payments. Generally, community property is subject to having a lien placed on it to satisfy the debts of a married couple. But first, the trial court must determine whether the property that is the subject of the lien is community property or separate property. Separate property is defined as “Property and pecuniary rights owned by a spouse before marriage and that acquired by him or her afterwards by gift, bequest, devise, descent, or inheritance…”10 In this case, the trial court must first determine whether tribal per capita is community property, or the separate property of the tribal member at the time the per capita is distributed to the tribal member. When there is an order by the tribal court, the Tribe will make payments from the tribal member’s per capita directly to a creditor.11
Neither the Order Placing Lien, nor the hearing recordings, contains any reference to the legal authority or legal analysis relied upon by the trial court in determining that tribal member per capita payments are community property, rather than separate property. The trial court record does not provide the legal support for the decisions on either of the legal questions raised by the issue presented. The trial court did not cite the legal authority or provide legal analysis for the decision to allow the addition of Christina Bragg to the original lawsuit, nor for the trial court decision that tribal member per capita is community property. Since this Court cannot determine from the record the legal authority upon which the trial court made its decisions, this Court concludes that the absence of legal authority in the record to support the trial court’s decisions is a clear error of law.
Therefore, the Order Placing Lien should be REVERSED and this matter REMANDED for the trial court to conduct further proceedings that address the two questions of law discussed herein.
Issue 3. Whether the Braggs received notice of October 25, 2016 hearing regarding the lien on per capita.
On October 25, 2016, the trial court held a hearing on the Petition to place a lien on Christina Bragg’s per capita. The Braggs were not present at the hearing.12 After the hearing the trial court issued an Order Placing Lien on Christine Bragg’s per capita. The trial court found that “Notice of the hearing was given to all necessary parties in accordance with tribal law.” There is no proof of service in the case file showing notice of the hearing was provided to the Braggs.
On November 1, 2016, the Braggs filed a petition to “Lift Lien on Christine’s per cap”. The reason given to lift the lien was “we [the Braggs] were not notified of October 25, 2016 court date.” The trial court re-set the case for hearing to specifically address the petition for lien
15 NICS App. 30, BRAGG v. KRISE (July 2017) p. 34
on per capita. The trial court then maintained the Order Placing Lien on Christine Bragg’s per capita after the re-hearing held on April 11, 2017.
By setting the petition for lien for re-hearing, the trial court remedied the notice issue by giving the Braggs the opportunity to address the lien request at the re-hearing on April 11, 2017. Mr. Bragg was given the opportunity to present his defense to the lien. This Court found no evidence in the record that the Braggs were harmed, prejudiced, or unable to present their defense to the petition for lien. Therefore, this Court concludes that failure to provide notice for the initial hearing on the petition for lien was harmless error, because the trial court remedied the error by re-hearing the matter.
Issue 4. Whether the Bragg’s are entitled to be awarded punitive damages in the amount of $1,020.77, for civil rights violations and defamation.
On appeal the Braggs for the first time have brought claims for civil rights violations and defamation and are requesting punitive damages in the amount of $1,020.77. The purpose of an appeal is to allow a person who claims, in good faith, that the Squaxin Island Tribal Court made a mistake in interpreting the law or a mistake in procedure, which affected the outcome of a case, the right to appeal from the final judgment.13 The authority of the Court of Appeals is limited to dismiss an appeal, reverse the Trial Court decision in whole or in part, order a new trial, or make any other ruling which disposes of the issues raised by the appeal.14 The Court of Appeals is not a court having original jurisdiction for a party to bring new claims or counterclaims. Claims and counterclaims must be originally brought in the trial court. Therefore, all claims and/or counterclaims brought by the Braggs in this appeal should be DISMISSED.
4. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Judgment Order issued on October 27, 2015 is AFFIRMED. The Appellants claims and/or counterclaims brought on appeal against the Appellees are hereby DISMISSED. The Order Placing Lien is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED to the trial court to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
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.
SITCO 4.32.070 Appeal judges, “…at the election and request of the Tribe a one judge panel shall be allowed and provided for in all cases in which the Tribe is no the appealing party.”
“Per Cap” is an abbreviation for per capita, meaning tribal per capita payments to tribal members.
Burrow v. Squaxin Island Gaming Enterprise, 10 NICS App. 54, 56 (12/19/2011).
Petition for Appeal of Decision Ordered 4-11-17, filed 4/18/2017.
Petition for:______, filed 9/30/15.
Petition For: Lien on Per Cap, filed 10/3/2016.
See Order Placing Lien, filed 11/1/2015, pg. 1, paragraph 3.
SITCO, 4.24.100 A.
Id.
See RCW 26.16.010, as persuasive authority for the definition of separate property.
Tribal Government Policy, RE: Per Capita Off-Set Priorities, 8/5/2015.
The Braggs claimed they did not receive notice of the October 25, 2016 hearing.
4.32.020 Right to Appeal.
4.32.150(C) Judgment.