5 NICS App. 149, HAVEN v. MARCIL (November 1999)

IN THE METLAKATLA TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

METLAKATLA INDIAN COMMUNITY

METLAKATLA, ALASKA

Mervin Haven, Appellant/Defendant,

v.

Kim Marcil & Rhea Kahle, Respondents/Plaintiffs.

No. 97-13 (November 2, 1999)

SUMMARY

Appellant appeals a judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiffs-Respondents by the Magistrate’s Court. Plaintiff sued the Defendant for monies he withheld from their rental deposit. The Court of Appeals notes that the Magistrate Court’s findings of fact are reviewed for abuse of discretion, while any alleged errors in its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. The Court of Appeals found that the magistrate based his final determination on principles of equity, in that Metlakatla has no codified laws addressing landlord-tenant issues. Therefore, the court reviewed this case as one involving factual disputes, and in deferring to the magistrate’s decision involving factual disputes, the court found sufficient evidence in the record to support the Magistrate Court’s findings.

FULL TEXT

Before:            Lorintha Warwick, Chief Justice; Douglas W. Luna, Justice; Rose E. Purser, Justice.

Appearances:  Mervin Haven, Appellant, pro se; Kim Marcil, Respondent, pro se, via teleconference.

THIS MATTER came before the Metlakatla Court of Appeals pursuant to Appellant’s Notice of Appeal filed on December 11, 1997. Appellant appeals the judgment entered by the Magistrate’s Court on December 9, 1997, in favor of Plaintiffs-Respondents.

I. JURISDICTION

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Mervin Haven because he is a member of the Metlakatla Indian Community. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Kim Marcil and Rhea Kahle pursuant to §2.1.1.D. The act which is the subject of this appeal occurred within the exterior boundaries of the Metlakatla Indian Reservation, giving rise to this Court’s territorial jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Ordinance 72, §2(a) and Article V of the Metlakatla Constitution.

5 NICS App. 149, HAVEN v. MARCIL (November 1999) p. 150

II. ISSUE ON APPEAL

The sole issue on appeal is whether the Magistrate’s Court erred in granting judgment in favor of Plaintiffs-Respondents in this matter.

III. BACKGROUND

Respondents Kim Marcil and Rhea Kahle rented property owned by Appellant Mervin Haven. In late August of 1997, Respondents were preparing to terminate their tenancy. They attempted, unsuccessfully, to contact Mr. Haven on numerous occasions in order to perform the apartment inspection and to return the keys.

The inspection was performed on September 13, 1997, at which time Ms. Marcil and Ms. Kahle returned the keys. Mr. Haven noted that the carpet needed cleaning. Ms. Marcil and Ms. Kahle offered to clean the carpet themselves and agreed to wait until Mr. Haven returned from Ketchikan with the stain remover. The record shows the agreed date to have been September 15 or 16. Respondents rented a carpet cleaner for the appointed date; however, Mr. Haven did not return from Ketchikan until September 17. Respondents were unable to clean the carpet in Mr. Haven’s absence as they had returned the keys several days earlier.

Mr. Haven proceeded to have the apartment cleaned after Respondents vacated the premises. He charged the cleaning expenses to Respondents ($70), as well as a pro-rata rent for the month of September through the 13th ($260), when the keys were returned to him. This amount was deducted from Respondents’ $400 damage deposit.

Pursuant to a complaint filed by Respondents, the Magistrate’s Court issued a judgment against Appellant, ordering him to return Respondents’ deposit, with interest, and to pay court costs, for a total of $460. This appeal followed.

IV. DISCUSSION

On appeal, this Court of Appeals reviews the lower court record to determine whether the evidence in the record is sufficient to support the magistrate’s decision. The Magistrate Court’s findings of fact are reviewed for abuse of discretion, while any alleged errors in its conclusion of law are reviewed de novo. It appears from the record that the lower court based its final determination on principles of equity, as Metlakatla has no codified laws addressing landlord-tenant issues. Therefore, we review this issue as we would a factual dispute, deferring to the court below, which is in the best position to consider the testimony and determine the credibility of witnesses. We will not disturb the lower court’s findings if there is sufficient evidence in the record to support those findings. This Court finds there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings and judgment of the Magistrate’s Court.

5 NICS App. 149, HAVEN v. MARCIL (November 1999) p. 151

V. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Magistrate’s Court is hereby affirmed.