SHOALWATER BAY v. BLAIR

18 NICS App. 32, SHOALWATER BAY v. BLAIR (September 2020)

IN THE SHOALWATER BAY TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN RESERVATION

TOKELAND, WASHINGTON

Shoalwater Bay, Petitioner/Appellee,

Amanda Blair, Respondent/Appellant.

NO. SHO-CV-AP-2019-0077 (September 29, 2020)

SYLLABUS^*

A tribal housing tenant appealed trial court’s order granting motion for writ of restitution and claimed trial court violated her procedural due process rights because she was not informed of her right to a spokesperson or the steps needed to secure one. Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court errored when it determined appellant’s brother was ineligible to serve as a spokesperson because he had not read the entire tribal code. The trial court should have instead inquired whether he was familiar with the laws which apply to appellant’s case as this is one of the required qualifications listed under the code to serve as a spokesperson. Court of Appeals reversed trial court’s order and remanded matter for new trial.

Before:	Randy A. Doucet, Chief Appellate Judge; Mary Finkbonner Cardoza, Appellate Judge; Patricia Davis, Appellate Judge.
Appearances:	Amanda Blair, pro se, Appellant; Tim Rybka, Attorney for Housing Authority of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, for Appellee.

OPINION

Per Curiam

BACKGROUND

Appellant Amanda Blair, a Shoalwater Bay Tribal Housing tenant, appeals an Order Granting Motion for Writ of Restitution. After a hearing in which Ms. Blair was self-represented, the Shoalwater Bay Tribal Court determined that Ms. Blair violated the terms of her Shoalwater Bay Tribal Housing Department Tenant Occupancy Agreement (“Agreement”).

18 NICS App. 32, SHOALWATER BAY v. BLAIR (September 2020) p. 33

The eviction hearing was originally scheduled on October 9, 2019, but was continued to November 13, 2019, to give Ms. Blair time to obtain legal representation. At the November 13, 2019, eviction hearing Ms. Blair’s brother, Cody Blair, attempted to assist her. After a brief discussion with Mr. Blair, the Tribal Court determined that it would not be able to qualify Mr. Blair as a spokesperson, and that he had not requested to be admitted as a spokesperson. (Id at 21). Ms. Blair proceeded with the hearing representing herself. Ms. Blair was unable to introduce evidence during the hearing, which she argues would have changed the outcome of the hearing.

The Tribal Court granted the Housing Authority’s Motion for Writ of Restitution after finding proper notice, issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Order terminated Ms. Blair’s Agreement and required her to vacate the premises within a time certain.

BASIS OF APPEAL

Appellant argues that the Tribal Court violated her procedural due process rights because she was not informed of her right to have a spokesperson and what steps she needed to take in order to achieve that help. Ms. Blair also argues that she was not informed of the procedures to enter evidence.

RIGHT TO A SPOKESPERSON

The Shoalwater Bay Tribal Law and Order Code 1.09.010 provides:

Any person appearing before the Shoalwater Bay Tribal Court has the right to have a spokesperson at his or her own expense, to assist in presenting his or her case.

The right to a spokesperson or a lawyer derives from the due process right to a hearing. (Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68 (1932)).

“The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. (Id. At 68-69)

The Tribal Court record shows the Tribal Court did not examine the proposed spokesperson’s qualifications or swear him in as a spokesperson when the opportunity arose during the hearing. (Tribal Court hearing transcript pgs.6, 21-22). Counsel for the Appellee responded, when asked in oral argument, that he did not know of any reason or restriction as to why that could not happen. Rather, the Tribal Court stated during the eviction hearing, “And if you’re going to be giving her advice, you have to be sworn in as a spokesperson and I don’t believe that you would qualify.” (Id at 21) The Tribal Court asked the proposed spokesperson if he had read the Tribal Code. (Tribal Court Hearing Transcript at page 21). He responded, “I’ve read most of it.” Reading the Tribal Code is not a requirement to be a spokesperson – they must be familiar with the laws of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe which applies in their cases. The proper inquiry regarding Mr. Blair’s qualifications would have been whether he was familiar with the laws of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe that applied to Ms. Blair’s case.

Under Tribal law, persons desiring to appear as a spokesperson before the Tribal Court must meet the following qualifications: (a) Be at least 21 years of age; (b) Be of good moral

18 NICS App. 32, SHOALWATER BAY v. BLAIR (September 2020) p. 34

character; (c) Be familiar with the laws of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe which apply in their cases; and (d) Have taken and signed the spokesperson’s oath. (SBITC 1.09.030).

This Court recognizes that the Tribal Court was placed in a dilemma by Ms. Blair’s attempt to have her brother admitted to the Tribal Court bar as a spokesperson during her eviction hearing. Regardless, however, it was not an unreasonable burden to place upon the Tribal Court for compliance with such a fundamental right as the access to counsel/spokesperson. The Tribal Court erred in its inquiry as to whether Mr. Blair read the Tribal Code in determining that he was not qualified to be admitted as a spokesperson. The qualification is that the applicant must be familiar with the laws of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe which applies in their case. While the Appellant had additional time to secure legal counsel, at best, who she was able to procure, was her brother as a proposed spokesperson.

Without a spokesperson, evidence that may have been admitted to support her case was excluded. Ms. Blair was not able to fully present her case, which may have changed the outcome of the hearing. We therefore conclude that the trial court decision should be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

CONCLUSION

We Reverse and Remand the case to the Tribal Court for a new hearing consistent with this Opinion.

Appellee shall pay the costs of the appeal per SBITC 19.09.030.

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.