SOUTHERN PUGET SOUND IHA v. McKENNEY

8 NICS App. 45, SOUTHERN PUGET SOUND IHA v. McKENNEY (April 2008)

IN THE SHOALWATER BAY TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN RESERVATION

TOKELAND, WASHINGTON

Southern Puget Sound Intertribal Housing Authority, Plaintiff and Appellee,

Samantha McKenney, Defendant and Appellant.

No. SHO-CIV-11/07-247 (April 15, 2008)

SYLLABUS^*

Trial court issued order evicting Defendant from tribal housing based on Defendant’s failure to make payments. Court of Appeals holds that Defendant’s notice of appeal fails to comply with statutory requirement that the notice identify an error that would affect the outcome of the case. Appeal dismissed.

Before: Suzanne Ojibway Townsend, Chief Judge.

OPINION

This matter comes before the Shoalwater Bay Tribal Court of Appeals, Chief Judge Suzanne Ojibway Townsend presiding, pursuant to the Notice of Appeal filed by Appellant on January 14, 2008.

The Shoalwater Bay Appellate Code requires an Appellant to claim in good faith that errors made by the Tribal Court “affected the outcome of the case.” SBTC 19.03.010. The Appellate Code is clear that this requirement must be met for an appeal to be accepted for review. SBTC 19.05.010(c). See also SBTC 19.05.010(b) and SBTC 19.04.030(d) (The Court of Appeals shall accept the appeal only if the notice of appeal substantially complies with the requirement that the notice of appeal “list each error of law or procedure which the appellant claims was committed by the Shoalwater Bay Tribal Court and its effect on the outcome of the case.”) (Emphasis added.)

The Complaint in this matter claims that Appellant breached her Rental Housing Lease Agreement by failing to make payments required under the Agreement and by failing to not use, manufacture, sell or distribute any illegal controlled substance on the premises. Appellant’s Notice of Appeal claims the Tribal Court erred by not providing her the time she requested to

8 NICS App. 45, SOUTHERN PUGET SOUND IHA v. McKENNEY (April 2008) p. 46

vacate the premises and by issuing its civil judgment even though Appellant had not been convicted of a crime involving controlled substances and the police were allegedly withholding evidence regarding the controlled substance charge. However, the Judgment and Order to Vacate entered by the Tribal Court on January 9, 2008 does not include any findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding possession or use of a controlled substance. On its face, the Judgment and Order to Vacate is based solely on Appellant’s failure to make required payments.

Appellant’s Notice of Appeal does not claim that the Tribal Court committed an error in reaching its judgment that Appellant had failed to make payments required under the Rental Housing Lease Agreement. And, the failure of the trial court to provide the amount of time Appellant requested to vacate the premises does not, on its face, present an error on appeal. Rather, it appears that Appellant simply disagrees with the decision made by the Trial Court. Thus, even if this Court agreed with Appellant regarding the time to vacate and controlled substance issues, it would not affect the outcome of this case, because on its face, the Judgment and Order to Vacate is based on the failure to pay rent, not use or possession of a controlled substance.

Because Appellant’s Notice of Appeal does not comply with the provisions of the Appellate Code requiring the Appellant to show that accepting the appeal would affect the outcome of the case, the Appellate Code requires that this appeal must be dismissed.

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.