6 NICS App. 28, BOSTON v. TULALIP HOUSING AUTHORITY (January 2001)
IN THE TULALIP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
TULALIP INDIAN RESERVATION
TULALIP, WASHINGTON
Michelle Boston, Appellant/ Respondent,
v.
Tulalip Housing Authority, Respondent/Plaintiff.
No. TUL-Ci-09/00-307 (January 24, 2001)
SYLLABUS*
Trial court entered judgment in favor of Housing Authority on complaint for unlawful detainer. Court of Appeals holds that its jurisdiction is limited to the review of alleged errors of law or procedure and that the appeal fails to allege error by the trial court. Appeal dismissed.
Before: Patricia Paul, Chief Justice; Volney Cothran, Justice, Rose E. Purser, Justice.
OPINION
THIS MATTER came before the Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals on January 23, 2001. Appellate justices presiding were Associate Justice Rose Purser, Associate Justice Volney Cothran and Chief Justice Patricia Paul.
On September 21, 2000 Respondent/Plaintiff Tulalip Housing Authority filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Michelle Boston, alleging failure to make her monthly housing payments as required by the terms of her lease. The Housing Authority informed Ms. Boston of her right to request a grievance hearing. Ms. Boston did not request a grievance hearing.
The matter proceeded to trial on December 19, 2000. The trial court found in favor of the Housing Authority and entered a judgment against Ms. Boston in the amount of $2,051.95 for past due house payments and count costs. Ms. Boston appealed the trial court decision on January 2, 2001.
This court, having reviewed the tribal code, law, and grievance code and the Appeal and trial court documents: Writ of Restitution, Judgment, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, transcript of December 19, 2000 hearing, tenant ledger, Eviction Summons of October 11, 2000,
6 NICS App. 28, BOSTON v. TULALIP HOUSING AUTHORITY (January 2001) p. 29
Eviction Summons of September 21, 2000 and Complaint for Unlawful Detainer, now therefore, hereby
ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES:
1. The appeal was timely filed and appeal bond was posted; however, the appeal fails to allege that the trial court committed error of law or procedure.
2. The appellant/respondent appears to be attempting to retry or rehear the issues decided in the trial court. It is not within the jurisdiction of the court of appeals to retry a matter. The court of appeals does not hear testimony or accept new evidence; rather, its sole province is the review of alleged errors of law or procedure. In this instance, the trial court has properly applied the law to the fact.
3. The appellants request for an appeal is hereby denied. The Tulalip Housing Authority may seek to enforce the December 19, 2000 Judgment and Writ of Restitution.
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.