Tulalip Housing Authority v. Craig

3 NICS App. 317, Tulalip Housing Authority v. Craig (July 1994)

IN THE TULALIP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

TULALIP INDIAN RESERVATION

MARYSVILLE, WASHINGTON

No. TUL-Ci-3/94-282 (July 27, 1994)

SUMMARY

Appeal of Writ of Restitution issued by Trial Court restoring house to Tulalip Housing Authority due to default in rent. Court of Appeals affirmed trial court judgment.

FULL TEXT

Before: Chief Justice Elbridge Coochise, Associate Justice David Ward, and Associate Justice Jay White.

Appearances: Stacy Oshie and Christina Berg, representing respondent, Tulalip Housing Authority.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

Plaintiff, Tulalip Housing Authority, brought an Unlawful Detainer action against Defendant, George Craig, III, for failure to pay rent and failure to abide by a payback agreement. After a hearing, which Defendant did not attend despite having been notified, the Trial Court ordered Defendant to pay all monies owing, and ordered a Writ of Restitution restoring premises to Plaintiff. Defendant appeals the Trial Court judgment.

COOCHISE, Chief Justice:

THIS MATTER came before the Tulalip Court of Appeals on June 27, 1994.

Present at the hearing were Stacy Oshie and Christina Berg representing the Respondent. The Appellant, though notified of the hearing, did not appear to present his case.

George Craig, III, appeals the decision of the Trial Court entered on April 8, 1994, which directed the Court Clerk to issue a Writ of Restitution, restoring his rental home to the possession of Tulalip Housing Authority.

3 NICS App. 317, Tulalip Housing Authority v. Craig (July 1994) p. 318

I. JURISDICTION OF TRIBAL COURT

The Tulalip Tribal Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Unlawful Detainer Action's pursuant to Tulalip Tribal Ordinance No. 50, Section 1.5.

Personal jurisdiction exists because the Appellant lives within the exterior boundaries of the Tulalip Reservation; it is immaterial that the Appellant is a Tribal member.

Territorial jurisdiction exists because the home which the Unlawful Detainer Action concerns is within the exterior boundaries of the Tulalip Reservation and is regulated by the Tulalip Housing Authority.

The Tulalip Tribal Appellate Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Tulalip Tribal Law and Order Code, Ordinance 49, Section 1.11.1, which states in relevant part:

Any person who claims in good faith, that the Tulalip Tribal Court made a mistake in interpreting the law or a mistake in procedure which affected the outcome of a case shall have a right to appeal a final judgment.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case originated as an Unlawful Detainer Action by the Tulalip Housing Authority against the Appellant George Craig, III. The Tulalip Housing Authority is set up to provide low-income housing to Tribal members. Continued Federal funding is partially dependant upon collecting rents from the tenants in the housing. The amount of rent is based on the tenant's income. The Appellant is an tenant of Tulalip Housing Authority. His rent is $107 per month.

On January 18, 1994, the Tulalip Housing Authority served the Appellant with a Notice of Termination of the Mutual Help and Occupancy Agreement entered into by the parties. The termination notice was sent because the Appellant had failed to make his rent payments, had failed to abide by the terms of a payback agreement entered into on September 9, 1993, and was in arrears $679. The Appellant did not move out of the premises.

On March 29, 1994, the Appellant was served with a summons, complaint, and notice of hearing. The Appellant did not respond to the complaint in writing and did not appear at the hearing scheduled for April 8, 1994.

At the hearing on April 8, 1994, the Trial Court entered a judgment against the Appellant for $893, plus any additional rent or damages owing after the defendant had vacated the premises, and ordered a Writ of Restitution restoring the premises to the Respondent.

3 NICS App. 317, Tulalip Housing Authority v. Craig (July 1994) p. 319

The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on April 11, 1994. No grounds were stated for the appeal, nor was a brief ever filed.

The Appellant did not appear at the Tribal Appeals Court Hearing held on June 27, 1994.

III. ORDER AND REMAND FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

1. The Appellant's appeal is Dismissed with prejudice.

2. The Trial Court's judgment is Affirmed.

3. The entire bond posted by the Appellant shall be disbursed to the Respondent, Tulalip Housing Authority, for payment towards the arrearage owed.

4. The matter is remanded to Tulalip Tribal Trial Court for issuance of a writ of restitution restoring the premises to the Respondent and for a determination as to whether any additional amounts are now owing.