NARTE v. NOOKSACK

6 NICS App. 91, NARTE v. NOOKSACK (January 2002)

IN THE NOOKSACK TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

NOOKSACK INDIAN RESERVATION

DEMING, WASHINGTON

Mario Narte, Appellant/Defendant,

Nooksack Indian Tribe, Respondent/Plaintiff.

No’s. NOO-CiF-5/01-021, 023, 024, 025 (January 7, 2002)

SYLLABUS^*

Trial court entered default judgment for violations of tribal fishing ordinance following Defendant’s failure to appear. Court of Appeals holds notice of appeal failed to comply with tribal code provisions requiring that notice specify the parts of the decision the Appellant wants reviewed and the errors of law or procedure claimed to have been committed by the trial court. Appeal dismissed.

Before: Lisa E. Brodoff, Chief Justice.

OPINION

This matter came before the Nooksack Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to a Notice of Appeal timely filed on November 2, 2001 by Appellant, Mario Narte. Mr. Narte appeals from a trial court default order entered on August 1, 2001.

Background

On June 8, 2001 Mr. Narte was personally served with Civil Complaints for violations of several provisions of the Nooksack Fishing Ordinance. The Notice of Hearings notified Mr. Narte that "[f]ailure to appear in Court may result in default judgments being entered against you."

Mr. Narte did not appear for the scheduled August 1, 2001 hearing, whereupon the Tribe moved for a default judgment. The trial court granted the Tribe's motion and issued a written default judgment order. The order was filed on August 7, 2001.

On August 28, 2001 Mr. Narte filed a Motion for Reconsideration requesting another hearing because "on August 1st, 2001, sockeye salmon season was open." The trial court agreed to hold a hearing on the motion "in the interest of justice." The hearing was set for October 3, 2001. Mr. Narte did not appear on October 3rd, requesting yet another continuance.

6 NICS App. 91, NARTE v. NOOKSACK (January 2002) p. 92

A hearing on Mr. Narte's motion was held on October 19, 2001. Pursuant to that hearing, the trial court found that petitioner Tribe had properly followed all procedures and denied the motion to reconsider. See Order of October 19, 2001. This appeal followed.

Discussion

Acceptance of review by this court is governed by Nooksack Appellate Rule 80.05.010, which states, in relevant part:

The Chief Judge shall ...accept the appeal on be half of the Court of Appeals provided:

(a) The notice of appeal was filed within the required time limit,

(b) The notice of appeal substantially complies with the requirements of section 80.04.030, and

The Appellant's notice of appeal does substantially comply with subsection (a) and (c) above, but fails to comply with subsection (b). This subsection requires that the notice comply with 80.04.030. Here, Appellant's notice of appeal fails to comply with subsections (c) and (d) of 80.04.030, which require that the notice "specify those parts of the decision which the party wants reviewed" and "list each error of law or procedure which the appellant claims was committed by the Nooksack Tribal Court and its effect on the outcome of the case."

While Appellant's notice does discuss his potential defenses to the merits of the underlying Fishing Ordinance offense, that matter was never reached by the Trial Court because Mr. Nuarte was found to be in default. The order being appealed here is not the final decision on the merits of the case after a full trial, but a default order entered resulting from Mr. Nuarte's failure to appear for the trial date. Therefore, the only appealable issue is whether or not the trial court properly entered the default order of August 1, 2001, or properly denied the Appellant's motion for reconsideration on October 19, 2001. Appellant's notice of appeal both fails to specify which parts of the default order he is appealing and what error of law or procedure was committed by the trial judge when she held Mr. Nuarte in default. Without some reference as to why the default order was entered incorrectly, there is nothing for the Court of Appeals to review.

As a result, this court holds that Appellant's notice fails to substantially comply with 80.04.030 (c) and (d), and dismisses the appeal. Further, this court stays the dismissal for 14 days after the entry of this order, to allow the appellant this time to amend his notice of appeal to specify those parts of the default order he wants reviewed, and to list each error of law or procedure in the default order he believes was committed by the Nooksack Tribal Court. If no amended notice that complies with 80.04.030 (c) and (d) is filed within 14 days of the entry of this order, the appeal shall be dismissed with prejudice.

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.