17 NICS App. 25, PHILLIPS v. BOICE (February 2019)

IN THE PORT GAMBLE S’KLALLAM TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

PORT GAMBLE S’KLALLAM INDIAN RESERVATION

KINGSTON, WASHINGTON

In Re The Support of E.B.P. And A.B.P.

Donovan Phillips, Respondent/Appellant,

v.

Jennifer Boice, Petitioner/Appellee.

NO.    POR-AP-2018-0001 (February 14, 2019)

SYLLABUS^*

Appellant was in arrears in his child support payments, trial court ordered him to obtain title to a travel trailer he alleged was his residence and sell the trailer and apply proceeds to the overdue child support. Appellant argued court erred as the travel trailer is exempt from execution as he does not own the travel trailer and the travel trailer is his residence. Court of Appeals found that trial court abused its discretion in entering its order to have appellant sell the travel trailer as there were no findings to establish whether 1) appellant owns the travel trailer, 2) uses it as his residence, and 3) the seizure and sale of the trailer will not impose an immediate and substantial hardship on the family as defined by the code. Court of Appeals vacated the trial court orders on appeal and remanded matter to trial court for further proceedings.

Before:	Gregory M. Silverman, Chief Judge; Ric Kilmer, Judge; Eric Nielsen, Judge.
Appearances:	Donovan Phillips, pro se; Jennifer Boice, pro se.

OPINION

Silverman, C.J.:

This matter comes before the Port Gamble S'Klallam Court of Appeals pursuant to the Notice of Appeal filed August 7, 2018, by Appellant, Donovan Phillips, appealing two orders of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Court: its Order Re: Child Support Enforcement Hearing dated July 17, 2018 and its Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration dated July 23, 2018. Two days after the Appeal was filed, the trial court filed a third order entitled “Order Granting Donovan

17 NICS App. 25, PHILLIPS v. BOICE (February 2019) p. 26

Phillips’ Motion for the Reconsideration of the Court’s Child Support Enforcement Order Dated July 17, 2018.” Notwithstanding its title, in this third order, the trial court appeared to deny Mr. Phillip’s Motion for Reconsideration for a second time. After inquiries made by this Court seeking clarification on whether Appellant’s motion for reconsideration had been granted or denied, the trial court on January 23, 2019 filed its Order Clarifying Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration Dated August 9, 2018, in which it clarified that it had denied the Motion for Reconsideration on August 9, 2018, noting that the August order had been mistitled. Therefore, this appeal is not moot.

Before learning of the trial court’s mistitled order this Court had accepted the appeal and issued a briefing schedule. Appellant timely filed his opening brief but the neither the Tribe nor the mother, Jennifer Boice,¹ filed a response brief.

In its Order Re: Child Support Enforcement hearing dated July 17, 2018, the trial court found Appellant was in arrears in his child support payments to the mother, Jennifer Boice, in the amount of $23,531.02. It ordered Appellant to obtain title to a travel trailer he alleged was his residence and to sell the trailer for no less than $1,500. It further ordered that Appellant pay 100% of the proceeds of the sale towards his back child support obligation.

Appellant argues the court erred in ordering him to sell the travel trailer for two reasons. First, he contends that the travel trailer does belong to him and, therefore, it is not subject to execution under Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribal Code (PGSTC) 3.09.13. Second, he contends that the travel trailer is his residence and, therefore, is exempt up to $100,000 from attachment, execution or forced sale for the payment of any judgment under PGSTC 3.09.15. Appellant also argues that the Tribal Court erroneously denied his Motion for Reconsideration for the same two reasons.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Our review is limited to issues of law unless we determine the trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous. PGSTC 7.03.04. This Court, however, is not required to give any deference to the trial court’s conclusions of law. Id.; In Re the Welfare of: J.H.A., 7 NICS App. 104, 106 (Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribal Ct. App. 2006). PGSTC 3.06.05 provides that in civil cases, where the Tribe’s laws or custom do not address an issue, its courts look to the law developed by other jurisdictions. In re the Welfare of D.D., 3 NICS App. 269, 270, (Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribal Ct. App. 1994) (tribal, state and federal law can be used as guidance).

In matters involving a child custody we have previously looked at Washington State law for guidance. In re the Custody of P.M. 12 NICS App. 76, 77 (Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribal Ct. App. 2014). Under Washington law child support orders are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. In re Marriage of Griffin, 114 Wn.2d 772, 776, 791 P.2d 519 (1990). We find that given the myriad of factors the trial court must consider in determining child support, this Court will also review the trial court’s child support orders under the abuse of discretion standard. Under that standard we determine whether substantial evidence supports the trial

17 NICS App. 25, PHILLIPS v. BOICE (February 2019) p. 27

court’s findings of fact and whether the findings support the court's conclusions of law or orders. "Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind would regard as adequately supporting a particular conclusion." See Walker v North Carolina Dep't of Human Resources, 100 N.C. App. 498, 503, 397 S.E. 2d 350, 354 (1990). If the court’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence or the findings do not support the court’s conclusions of law or its orders, the court has abused its discretion and committed an error of law. See Ferns v. Torres, 6 NICS App. 200, 202 (Chehalis Tribal Ct. App. 2004).

RULING

PGSTC 21.03.56 makes PGSTC 3.09.13 and 3.09.15 applicable to child support enforcement orders. Accordingly, if Appellant does not own the travel trailer, or the travel trailer is his residence within the meaning of PGSTC 3.09.15, then the court erred in ordering the Appellant to sell the travel trailer and apply the proceeds from the sale to his overdue child support obligations.

Although the trial court entered findings of fact, it failed to enter findings establishing the following facts, which are necessary to support its order:

Moreover, our review of the record reveals there is no evidence that establishes these facts. Absent these above factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, the trial court’s ruling ordering Appellant to obtain title to the travel trailer, and sell the trailer for not less than $1,500, is not factually supported. Because neither the evidence nor the court’s findings of fact support its order, the trial court abused its discretion in entering the order.

Accordingly, the Order Re: Child Support Enforcement Hearing dated July 17, 2018 and its Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration dated July 23, 2018, are both vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this Order.

---

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.

The mother filed the motion for enforcement of the child support that resulted in the July 17, 2018 order which was entered following a hearing on the motion that same day.

While the trial court reports in its order dated July 17, 2018 that Kenneth Boice informed the court that the Appellant “could obtain title to the travel trailer immediately”, Order Re: Child Support Enforcement Hearing 3 (July 17, 2018), there is no evidence in the record to support this factual claim. Moreover, if true, this report supports Appellant’s claim that he does not own the travel trailer.

We note that before the trial court could have made a finding of fact regarding this third factual issue, it would have had to resolve the legal issue of whether a travel trailer is a mobile home within the meaning of PGSTC 3.09.15.