MATTA v. TULALIP HOUSING AUTHORITY

6 NICS App. 146, MATTA v. TULALIP HOUSING AUTHORITY (June 2004)

IN THE TULALIP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

TULALIP INDIAN RESERVATION

TULALIP, WASHINGTON

Rita Matta, Appellant,

Tulalip Housing Authority, Appellee.

No. TUL-CV-GC-2004-0109 (June 29, 2004)

SYLLABUS^*

Trial court issued writ of restitution following defendant’s failure to respond to a motion for default and failure to appear at the hearing on the merits. Court of Appeals holds that no error of law or procedure occurred and defendants in civil cases have no right to court-appointed counsel. Trial court order affirmed.

Before: Jane Smith, Chief Justice.

OPINION

This matter came before the Court of Appeals pursuant to a Notice of Appeal being filed by Appellant on July 16, 2004. Appellant is appealing a final judgment issued by the Trial Court on June 3, 2004. Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the Trial Court on June 29, 2004. The appeal has been timely filed.

Appellant is specifically appealing the Writ of Restitution issued by the Trial Court, apparently alleging that she did not receive a lawyer. Appellant did not allege any violation of law nor did she allege how the Court erred in issuing its decision. Upon review of the case, the Court of Appeals finds that the Trial Court correctly applied the law concerning service of the documents filed in this case. Appellant was given adequate notice of the pending case and subsequent hearing. She was served a Motion and Declaration of Default on April 12, 2004 and failed to respond by the required deadline. She also failed to appear for a hearing on June 3, 2004 and the Court correctly ordered issuance of the Writ of Restitution, subsequent to a Default Order restoring the premises in question to the Tulalip Housing Authority. The Court of Appeals must defer to the decisions of the Trial Court unless there is an obvious violation by the Trial Court in interpreting and applying the law. In the instant case, no such violation or error by the Trial Court can readily be found. It is well established common law that parties are not afforded an attorney in civil cases. Appellant's apparent lack of participation in the initial process of the

6 NICS App. 146, MATTA v. TULALIP HOUSING AUTHORITY (June 2004) p. 147

Trial Court until the last minute before an eviction order is executed should not be held against the opposing party.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Appeal is hereby dismissed and this matter remanded to the Trial Court for processing consistent with this Order. Motion for Stay of Execution is denied.

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.