6 NICS App. 89, GOBIN v. TULALIP (January 2002)
IN THE TULALIP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
TULALIP INDIAN RESERVATION
TULALIP, WASHINGTON
Kim Gobin, Appellant,
v.
The Tulalip Tribes of Washington, Respondent.
No. TUL-Ci-12/00-420 (January 2, 2002)
SYLLABUS*
Trial court, sitting in appellate capacity, ruled that sovereign immunity bars suit challenging decision of the Tribe’s Board of Directors denying an application for a rezone and subdivision. Court of Appeals holds the suit is an appeal of an administrative agency action specifically authorized by the tribal code and doctrine of sovereign immunity is inapplicable. Remanded for a decision on the merits.
Before: Lawrence Numkena, Chief Justice; Gregory M. Silverman, Justice; Richard A. Woodrow, Justice.
OPINION
This matter came before the Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed by Appellant, Kim Gobin, on June 21, 2001. Ms. Gobin appeals from the Tulalip Tribal Court's Opinion and Order Dismissing Appeal.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Gobin owns nearly 22 acres of property on the southeast corner of 14th Street NW (Fire Trail Road) and 28th Avenue NW on the Tulalip Indian Reservation. Seeking to subdivide her property, Ms. Gobin filed an application with the Tulalip Department of Community Development (DCD) for approval of a proposed Planned Residential Development (PRD) rezone. The staff of DCD recommended denial of Ms. Gobin's proposed rezone and subdivision.
The Tulalip Planning Commission held a public hearing pursuant to Ordinance 80 (Tulalip Zoning Ordinance) §37, and adopted the findings and conclusions of the DCD staff
6 NICS App. 89, GOBIN v. TULALIP (January 2002) p. 90
recommendation. The Planning Commission recommended that the Tulalip Board of Directors deny Ms. Gobin's application.
The Board of Directors subsequently held a public hearing after which they voted to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny Ms. Gobin's application. Ms. Gobin timely appealed the Board's denial to the Tulalip Tribal Court. On June 12, 2001, after a hearing on the merits, the Tulalip Tribal Court issued an Opinion and Order Dismissing [Ms. Gobin's] Appeal based on its conclusion that Ordinance 80 "expressly reaffirms the tribe's immunity against this specific cause" and that there was no express waiver of that sovereign immunity, therefore barring Ms. Gobin's action.
DISCUSSION
The matter before the Tulalip Tribal Court was an appeal from an administrative process; therefore, the Tribal Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to Ord. 80, §39, and Ord. 49, § 1.2.3.1. The Tribal Court's conclusion that the action is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity is premature and in error. The action brought first before the Planning Commission, then to the Board of Directors and, finally, to the Tulalip Tribal Court is nothing more than an appeal of an administrative decision in accordance with procedures outlined in the Tulalip Zoning Ordinance. It is not a suit against the Tribe or its officials, agents, or entities. Thus, the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply.
It is fully within the authority of the Tulalip Tribal Court, sitting in appellate review of an administrative decision, to hear arguments regarding due process violations which allegedly occurred at the administrative level.
Ms. Gobin requested this Court of Appeals to reverse both the Tribal Court's dismissal and the Board of Directors' denial of her proposal. This Court's scope of appellate review is limited to final judgments rendered by the lower court, including its findings and conclusions. While it is true that the Tribal Court held a hearing on the merits of Ms. Gobin's appeal, it dismissed the matter without ruling on the merits themselves. Therefore, this matter is appropriately remanded to the lower court with instruction to render a decision on the merits.
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Opinion and Order of the Tulalip Tribal Court is hereby vacated and the matter is remanded with instruction to render a decision based on the merits.
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.