4 NICS App. 3, THA v. VARNER (May 1995)
IN THE TULALIP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
TULALIP INDIAN RESERVATION
MARYSVILLE, WASHINGTON
Tulalip Housing Authority, Respondent/Plaintiff
v.
Dale Varner, Misty Varner, Appellants/Defendants
No. TUL-Ci-2/95-332 (May 5, 1995)
SUMMARY
Appeal from trial court judgment terminating tenancy. Appellant (defendant below) failed to appear at the lower court proceeding. Scope of appeal is limited to a review of the facts and issues raised in the record below. The merits of this case were never heard by the trial court; therefore, there is no record for the Court of Appeals to review. We affirm and remand for enforcement of the trial court judgment.
FULL TEXT
Before: Elbridge Coochise, Chief Justice; Charles R. Hostnik, Justice; Jay V. White, Justice.
Appearances: Stacy Oshie and Lucinda Jones, for Respondent Tulalip Housing Authority; Dale Varner, Appellant, pro se.
Per Curiam:
This matter came for hearing before the Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals on March 31, 1995, pursuant to Appellants' notice of appeal filed on February 27, 1995. Appellants appeal from the February 10, 1995, Tulalip Tribal Court Judgment terminating their tenancy.
BACKGROUND
Respondent/Plaintiff Tulalip Housing Authority (hereinafter “Respondent”) owns property located at 7412 Larry Price Loop Road in Marysville, which is located within the Tulalip Indian Reservation. On October 6, 1994, Respondent entered into an agreement to lease the property to Appellants/Defendants Dale and Misty Varner (hereinafter “Appellants”). Appellants agreed to make monthly rent payments to Respondent and to abide by the terms of a payback agreement which permitted Appellants to pay the required initial deposit in monthly installments.
Appellants made the first required payment; however, they failed to make any subsequent payments. On December 15, 1994, Respondent served Appellants with an eviction notice. The
4 NICS App. 3, THA v. VARNER (May 1995) p. 4
notice required Appellants to pay rent or quit the premises; Appellants did neither.
On February 2, 1995, Respondent served Appellants with a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer, alleging that Appellants had failed to make monthly rental payments and had failed to abide by the terms of the deposit-payback agreement, and that Appellants' failure to make such payments had resulted in an outstanding balance of $1,203.00. The complaint further alleged that Appellants had not complied with a properly served notice to pay rent or quit premises. Respondent sought a writ of restitution restoring the premises to the Tulalip Housing Authority.
Also on February 2, 1995, Respondent served Appellants with an Eviction Summons, which required Appellants to respond to the complaint in writing by February 9, 1995, or lose by default. A Notice setting a February 10, 1995 hearing date accompanied the Summons.
Appellants failed to answer the Summons or appear at the February 10, 1995 hearing. At the hearing, the Tulalip Tribal Court found that Appellants had breached both the lease and payback agreements, owed Respondent $1,203.00, and had failed to comply with the eviction notice. The trial court terminated Appellants' tenancy, and ordered Appellants to pay the outstanding balance on back rent and to restore the premises to Respondent. Appellants appealed the trial court judgment on February 27, 1995.
JURISDICTION
The Tulalip Tribal Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Unlawful Detainer Actions pursuant to Tulalip Tribal Ordinance No. 50, § 1.5.
Personal jurisdiction exists because this is a civil case and the Appellants live within the exterior boundaries of the Tulalip Reservation. It is immaterial that the Appellants are tribal members.
Territorial jurisdiction exists because the property at issue in the Unlawful Detainer Action lies within the exterior boundaries of the Tulalip Indian Reservation and is regulated by the Tulalip Housing Authority.
The Tulalip Tribal Appellate Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Tulalip Law and Order Code, Ordinance 49, § 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.
ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
A number of issues have been raised by Appellants on appeal. This Court's review, however,
4 NICS App. 3, THA v. VARNER (May 1995) p. 5
is confined by the scope of appeal to the facts and issues raised on the record before the trial court. Ord. 49, § 1.11.10 (appeal to be decided "on the basis of the trial court record. . .").
Appellants did not appear at the trial court hearing despite proper notification. Thus, this Court is prevented from hearing the merits of this case because they never came before the trial court.
The Tulalip Law and Order Code, Ord. 49, § 1.11.10 does contain a provision that would allow this Court to hear additional evidence ". . . if refusal to consider the evidence would result in a clear injustice." No clear injustice results here. Appellants had every opportunity to present the merits of their case at the trial court hearing, which they failed to attend. Appellant Dale Varner admits he received the complaint and notice of the hearing; he also admits that he looked at neither the complaint nor the notice until after he learned that Respondent had terminated his tenancy. This does not constitute good cause for failing to appear before the trial court in accordance with the notice.
DECISION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, the order and judgment of the trial court are hereby affirmed and this case is remanded to the trial court for enforcement consistent with the trial court judgment that orders:
1. Appellants shall remit to Respondent all sums due and owing;
2. Appellants' tenancy in the property at issue is terminated, and;
3. The court clerk shall issue a Writ of Restitution to Appellants to restore to Respondent the property described in the complaint, to wit: 7412 Larry Price Loop Road, Marysville, Washington 98271.