7 NICS App. 1, SQUAXIN DEPT. OF COMM. DEVELOPMENT v. KRISE (January 2005)
IN THE SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
SQUAXIN ISLAND INDIAN RESERVATION
SHELTON, WASHINGTON
Squaxin Island Tribe, Department of Community Development, Office of Housing,
Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
Rodney Krise, Defendant/Appellant.
No. SQI-CI-04-10-271 (January 28, 2005)
SYLLABUS*
Trial court issued order evicting Defendant from tribal housing. Court of Appeals holds that Appellant’s failure to state grounds for appeal as required by code and failure to respond to order directing Appellant to amend his Notice of Appeal require dismissal of the appeal. Judgment affirmed
OPINION
Pearson, J.:
This matter comes before the Squaxin Island Tribal Court of Appeals, the Honorable Mary L. Pearson presiding as Chief Judge, pursuant to Appellant Rodney Krise’s November 9, 2004 oral notice of appeal and Appellee Squaxin Island Tribe’s November 18, 2004 Motion to Dismiss/Request for Expedited Hearing. The Squaxin Island Tribal Rules of Appellate Procedure allow the Chief Judge to rule on such a motion alone. SITC § 4.32.120(C).
On January 11, 2005, prior to ruling on the Tribe’s Motion to Dismiss, this Court issued a Substitute Preliminary Order on Motion to Dismiss affording Appellant the opportunity to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. The Order was filed by the Tribal Court Clerk on January 13, 2005 and served on Appellant on that date. The Order directed the Appellant to file any response he might wish to make to the Motion to Dismiss within ten days of being served with the Order. Appellant did not file a response.
7 NICS App. 1, SQUAXIN DEPT. OF COMM. DEVELOPMENT v. KRISE (January 2005) p. 2
SITC § 4.32.030 establishes that, at a minimum, a notice of appeal must include “the grounds for the appeal,” also stated as “the reasons why the party appealing thinks the court made a mistake.” SITC § 4.32.020 establishes that as a threshold matter, an appellant must claim that the trial court “made a mistake in interpreting the law or a mistake in procedure which affected the outcome of a case.” (emphasis added.) Read together, these two sections establish that a notice of appeal must include an explanation of why the party appealing thinks the trial court made a mistake in interpreting the law or a mistake in procedure.
In reviewing language in the Tulalip Tribal Code identical to that contained SITC § 4.32.030, the Tulalip Court of Appeals observed
Filing an appeal is not a fishing expedition. The Court must know the basis for the appeal and the part of the record that the party feels is in error, otherwise everyone would be able to file appeals just because they didn’t agree with the decision. This would render the usefulness of the Tribal Court meaningless. Any decision rendered would only be a catalyst for review by the Appellate Court. This is not in the best interests of the Tribe or its members, either judicially or economically. … It is not an unreasonable burden to put on the Appellant to state up front the reasons why he/she thinks the Trial Court made an error ….
Santibanez v. The Tulalip Tribes, Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration, No. TUL-CV-GC-2003-358 (Tulalip Ct. App. 2004).
The record shows that Appellant’s notice of appeal did not identify a mistake in interpreting the law or a mistake in procedure. Despite being offered the assistance of the Tribal Court clerk in preparing his original notice of appeal and despite being put on notice by Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss that his notice was potentially defective, Appellant appears to have made no effort to prepare a legally adequate notice or remedy the defect.
This Court holds that as a matter of Squaxin Island Tribal law, a notice of appeal must identify the mistake(s) in interpreting the law and/or the mistake(s) in procedure committed by the trial court which affected the outcome of the case. Because Appellant has failed to do so, Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss is granted. The stay which took effect under SITC § 4.32.040 of the Order of Eviction issued by the Tribal Court is hereby lifted. The Order of Eviction issued by the Tribal Court shall be enforceable immediately, provided that, as the Tribal Court gave Mr. Krise six days from the date of its Order to deliver the premises to the Office of Housing, Mr. Krise shall have six days from the date he is served this Order to deliver the premises to the Office of Housing. If Mr. Krise has not delivered the premises within six days of being served this Order, the Office of Housing is authorized to forcibly evict him and otherwise execute the judgment as set forth in the Tribal Court’s Order of Eviction.
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.