1 NICS App. 112, Coeur d'Alene Indian Housing Authority v. D.I. (May 1990)
IN THE KOOTENAI TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
KOOTENAI INDIAN RESERVATION
BONNERS FERRY, IDAHO
Coeur d'Alene Indian Housing Authority v. D.I.*
No. CI89-001 (May 17, 1990)
SUMMARY
At a de novo trial of a contract dispute, the Court of Appeals held that since the appellee was unaware of the nature or consequences of the contract at the time of its signing, and appellee was not legally competent, the contract is deemed void and the appellant cannot look for damages arising from its breach.
FULL TEXT
|
Elizabeth Fry, Chief Justice; Charles Hostnik, Appellate Judge; and Rosemary Irvin, Appellate Judge. |
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER
FRY, Chief Justice:
This matter came regularly before this court on June 23, 1989 for a de novo appeal hearing as requested by the Appellant, Coeur d'Alene Indian Housing Authority. The matter was heard before the appellate panel, and both parties were present, neither represented by counsel.
The court, having heard testimony, and having reviewed the records and files, makes the following findings.
FINDINGS OF FACT
|
1. |
The Kootenai Tribal Court entered judgment in this matter on March 2, 1989. |
|
2. |
The Coeur d'Alene Indian Housing Authority requested an appeal by letter on April 5, 1989. |
|
3. |
The Coeur d'Alene Indian Housing Authority supervises the purchase, maintenance, and repair of all Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing on the Kootenai Indian Reservation. |
|
4. |
D.I. signed a contract with the Coeur d'Alene Housing Authority to purchase a HUD house on August 15, 1985. |
1 NICS App. 112, Coeur d'Alene Indian Housing Authority v. D.I. (May 1990) p. 113
|
5. |
D.I. was not aware of what she was signing nor of the consequences at the time she signed the aforesaid contract. D.I. was not aware of the nature of the proceedings against her at the appeal trial, nor was she able to assist in the presentation of her case. |
|
6. |
In October 1988, Sam Waholi, the local agent for the Coeur d'Alene Indian Housing Authority, removed D.I. from her house and moved a Martin Andrews into the house. Neither D.I. nor Mr. Andrews made payments on the house. Damage was done to the house between October 1988 and April 1989, necessitating repairs in April 1989. |
|
7. |
No one made payments on the house from October 1988 to January 1989, whereupon the Coeur d'Alene Indian Housing Authority moved someone else into the house in May 1989. |
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
|
1. |
This court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 25 Code of Federal Regulations Section 11.6C, Appellate Proceedings. |
|
2. |
The Coeur d'Alene Housing Authority filed a timely request for an appeal. |
3. This court has jurisdiction of the parties in this action.
|
4. |
D.I. was not legally competent, as a matter of law, at the time she signed the HUD housing contract in August 1985. |
|
5. |
D.I. is not legally competent to represent her own interests at this proceeding. |
|
6. |
The contract signed between D.I. and the Coeur d'Alene Indian Housing Authority on August 15,1985 for the purchase of a HUD house is void. Legally, it is as though no contract had ever been signed. |
|
7. |
The Coeur d'Alene Indian Housing Authority is not entitled to recover rent due or the costs of repairing the house from D.I. |
ORDER
The Court having heard testimony and reviewed the evidence in this matter, and being fully advised in the premises, then, therefore,
It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the HUD contract signed between
1 NICS App. 112, Coeur d'Alene Indian Housing Authority v. D.I. (May 1990) p. 114
the parties on August 15, 1989 is void; it is further
Ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the matter before the court is dismissed with prejudice.
It as so ordered.
Publisher's note: Because the defendant in this matter was determined to be incompetent, this online version of the opinion uses only the defendant's initials.