5 NICS App. 112, BOYD v. CTHA (May 1999)
IN THE CHEHALIS TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
CHEHALIS INDIAN RESERVATION
OAKVILLE, WASHINGTON
Alvin Rodney Boyd & Virginia Nall, Appellants,
v.
Chehalis Tribal Housing Authority, Respondent.
No. CHE-CIV-7/98-109 (May 12, 1999)
SUMMARY
Appellants Alvin Boyd and Virginia Nall appeal a trial court decision on the basis of inadequate notification. The court found that under the Chehalis Tribal Civil Procedure Code, both Appellants were adequately notified even though only Ms. Nall signed a notice of hearing. The court found that Ms. Nall was a person of suitable age and discretion residing in the same residence with Mr. Boyd and, therefore, notice to her was sufficient and adequate notice to Mr. Boyd pertaining to an unlawful detainer action initiated against both of them. Appeal denied.
FULL TEXT
Before: Lawrence Numkena, Chief Justice; Darwin S. Long Fox, Justice; Jerrie Simmons, Justice.
This matter came before the Chehalis Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to Appellants’ Notice of Appeal filed on April 16, 1999. Appellants appeal from the April 12, 1999, Writ of Restitution issued by the trial court on April 12, 1999.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 9, 1998, the trial court held a hearing on an Unlawful Detainer Complaint filed by the Chehalis Housing Authority against Appellants Rodney Boyd and Virginia Nall. Appellants did not appear at that hearing. In its Findings, Conclusions and Order filed on December 16, 1998, the Chehalis Tribal Court ordered Appellants to vacate . Appellants appealed that order on the ground that the trial court had made a procedural error when it notified Appellant orally, but not in writing, about the November 9th hearing.
This Court of Appeals, on February 22, 1999, held that oral notification of the hearing without further written notification constituted procedural error. The matter was remanded to the trial court for service of written notification and new hearing.
On March 8, 1999, Ms. Nall signed a document entitled “Notice of Hearing and Promise to
5 NICS App. 112, BOYD v. CTHA (May 1999) p. 113
Appear” at a hearing on April 12, 1999. Pursuant to the April 12th hearing, the trial court issued a Writ of Restitution restoring the property in question to the Housing Authority. This appeal followed on April 16, 1999. Appellants again allege inadequate notification, claiming that Mr. Boyd had not been served with the Notice of Hearing.
II. JURISDICTION
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Rodney Boyd because he is a member of the Chehalis Indian Tribe. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Virginia Nall because she resides on the Chehalis Indian Reservation. The act which is the subject of this appeal occurred within the exterior boundaries of the Chehalis Indian Reservation, giving rise to territorial jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Title 17, §17.02.01 of the Chehalis Eviction Procedures Ordinance.
III. DISCUSSION AND ORDER
Section 2.30(a) of the Chehalis Tribal Civil Procedures Code provides:
Service may be accomplished by personal service or by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint or petition with a person of suitable age and discretion residing in the residence of the person sought to be served. [Emphasis added].
On March 8, 1999, Virginia Nall signed a Notice of Hearing and Promise to appear. This constitutes personal service and adequate notification as to Ms. Nall. Ms. Nall and Rodney Boyd are both named in the Notice of Hearing, as well as in all other pleadings pertaining to this matter filed in the Chehalis Tribal Court. Ms. Nall is a person of suitable age and discretion. Ms. Nall and Mr. Boyd both reside at 12 Davis Drive in Oakville, Washington. Proper personal service upon Ms. Nall, therefore, is effective service upon Mr. Boyd, tribal membership notwithstanding.
Notification was adequate; there was no reversible error. This Court notes that had the hearing been rescheduled for another date or time, notice of the change would properly be in written form.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that this appeal is denied. This matter is remanded to the trial court for enforcement of the April 12, 1999, Writ of Restitution.