3 NICS App. 377, Eagle v. Ball (January 1995)

IN THE SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

FORT HALL RESERVATION

FORT HALL, IDAHO

Eagle v. Ball

No. APP-94-10/C-94-19 (January 25, 1995)

SUMMARY

Appeal of Trial Court order awarding mobile home and title thereto to plaintiff. Court of Appeals reversed trial court order and awarded mobile home to defendant based on plaintiff's failure to transfer title to her own name; Appellate Court found that this showed intent to give the home to defendant as a gift. Further, Appellate Court held that because the Credit Union has a lien on the home and, therefore, possesses title to it, home ownership cannot be conveyed until the debt is paid or unless some other agreement is reached with Credit Union.

FULL TEXT

Before:            Justice David Harding.

Appearances:  Wilma Eagle, Petitioner; Luke Eagle, spokesperson for Petitioner; Royce Ball, Respondent; Blaine Edmo, advocate for Respondent.

NATURE OF ACTION

Plaintiff lived for a period of time in a mobile home with her son and former daughter-in-law, Defendants/Appellants in this action. Plaintiff paid off the balance on the mobile home and gave the title to her daughter-in-law, stating that the grandchildren would always have a place to live. Defendants subsequently used the title as collateral for a loan from the Pocatello Railroad Federal Credit Union.

Several years later, plaintiff's son and daughter-in-law were divorced. Possession of the mobile home was awarded to Plaintiff's son. Plaintiff filed a petition in trial court alleging that she was the owner of the home and seeking return of the property and full money judgment. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the home had been a gift from Plaintiff. Trial Court found that Defendants had failed to establish that the mobile home had, in fact, been a gift; trial court awarded the home to Plaintiff and ordered that the title be issued in her name. Defendants appeal from the order, alleging improper notice and denial of due process.

3 NICS App. 377, Eagle v. Ball (January 1995) p. 378

HARDING, Justice:

The above entitled matter came on for Appeal hearing on the 3rd day of August, 1994, and was heard before the undersigned Honorable Presiding Judge of the above entitled court. Present were Petitioner and her Spokesperson, Luke Eagle, and Respondent, Royce Ball, and her Advocate, Blaine Edmo, and William Beasley, Sr. was not present.

The Court having heard the arguments and representation of the parties and considered the records and information presented by witnesses, renders the following decision.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into an agreement whereby Wilma Eagle paid off the balance owing on a mobile home so that her then daughter-in-law and her grandchildren would always have a place to live.

In August of 1990, William Eagle was living with her son, William Beasley, his wife, Royce, and her two grandchildren from this marriage. They were living in a 1978 Titan mobile home with a rent-to-buy agreement in effect. The record indicates that Wilma was "getting along" with William and his family at the time.

One evening, the landlord came to the house drunk, according to testimony, and demanded the rent. After he left, Wilma Eagle inquired as to how much it would cost to buy the home. Soon after this, Wilma paid off the home and gave the title to her daughter-in-law, stating that they would always have a place to live. The mobile home was thought of as a gift from Ms. Eagle to her son and his family. The title to the mobile home was never in Wilma Eagle's name. Royce Ball has been instructed to have the title put in her name.

Some time after this, the title was used as collateral for a loan at the Pocatello Railroad Federal Credit Union.

By April of 1994, the marriage had fallen apart and Ms. Eagle had not lived with the Beasley's for some time. Also, in April of 1994, a divorce hearing was held and the Court, not being aware of the home being used as collateral, gave the home to William Beasley. Ms. Eagle at this time was not getting along with her son, William Beasley, and decided that the home was hers. She subsequently moved the home and claimed ownership. An appeal was filed in a timely manner after the divorce hearing by Royce Ball.

PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES

1. At the time the home was paid off by Ms. Eagle, had it been her intent to only lend this gift to her son, she should have had the title transferred to her name.

3 NICS App. 377, Eagle v. Ball (January 1995) p. 379

2. Prior to the divorce hearing date, documents should have been produced to show who was a lien holder or in whose name the mobile home title was in.

3. The divorce Court did not consider documentation that have excused Ms. Ball from the divorce hearing and caused that hearing to be rescheduled. Therefore, the divorce court would have issued a default judgment in favor of Mr. Beasley.

4. Mr. Beasley should have responded to the documents served on him informing him of the hearing on August 3, 1994. He could have answered the appeal notice and defended the default judgment issued on April 8, 1994.

DECISION

Having heard the arguments of the parties and considered the documentation presented, the Court finds as follows:

1. This mobile home was a gift from Wilma Eagle, intended to provide a roof over the heads of her grandchildren. This conclusion is made based upon Indian custom and tradition, which values protection of the younger generation as a priority. Ms. Eagle is to be commended for her intent in August of 1990.

It is of no value that Ms. Eagle sometimes does not get along with her own child, William Beasley, or that she no longer favors her former daughter-in-law, Royce Ball.

2. Had it been Ms. Eagle's intent to own the home herself, she would have had the home put in her name. The Court speculates that she did not do this in order to not have to pay taxes on the mobile home transaction and because she was sincere about the giving of the gift so her grandchildren would have a place to live.

3. Because the Pocatello Railroad Federal Credit Union has a lien in the form of a loan on this home, they are in possession of the title to the home. During the time that the title is in their possession, there cannot be conveyance of the home ownership until the debt against the title is paid in full or a subsequent agreement is reached with the Pocatello Railroad Federal Credit Union.

The Court therefore awards the mobile home to Ms. Ball. Any damages done to the home when it was moved are to be assessed and brought to the attention of the Court. Any disputes arising out of disagreements about damages are to be brought as a separate action in Civil Court.