9 NICS App. 12, COLEGROVE AND COLEGROVE v. MCLAUGHLIN (February 2009)
IN THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION
HOOPA, CALIFORNIA
Darlene Cyd Colegrove &
Charlotte R. Colegrove, Appellants,
v.
Mary Traversie &
Jimaica Gene McLaughlin, Respondents.
No. UD-08-003/C-08-005/PO-08-007 (February 12, 2009)
SYLLABUS*
Trial court issued order resolving land tenancy dispute. Court of Appeals finds that appeal was not timely filed and holds that appeal filing deadline is jurisdictional in nature. Appeal dismissed.
Before: Suzanne Ojibway Townsend, Chief Judge; Matthew Fletcher, Appellate Judge; Suzanne Eric Nielsen, Appellate Judge.
OPINION
Ojibway Townsend, C.J.:
This matter comes before the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to the Notice of Appeal filed by Appellant Darlene Colegrove on September 22, 2008. The Court of Appeals has devoted considerable time to examining whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal under the Hoopa Valley Tribal Code (HVTC). We conclude that we do not and therefore order the appeal dismissed.
The Hoopa Valley Rules of Appellate Procedure, HVTC Title 2, Chapter 6, govern this appeal and state:
An appeal permitted by law as of right from the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court of Appeals may be taken only by filing a notice of appeal with the Hoopa Valley
9 NICS App. 12, COLEGROVE AND COLEGROVE v. MCLAUGHLIN (February 2009) p. 13
Tribal Court within the time frame specified in 2 HVTC Section 2.6.01(a). Failure to appeal within that timeframe shall constitute a dismissal of that claim.
HVTC 2.6.02(a)(1) (emphases added)1. The time frame specified in HVTC 2.6.01(a) is “[w]ithin twenty (20) days from the entry of a final judgment, or judgment on a dispositive motion ….”
Ms. Colegrove appeals from the Order After Hearing entered by the Tribal Court on August 28, 2008.2 Ms. Colegrove filed her Notice of Appeal twenty five days after entry of the judgment, which is five days after the deadline set forth in HVTC 2.6.01(a).
This Court is not at liberty to disregard the filing deadlines established by the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council. HVTC 2.6.02(a)(1) commands that the Court of Appeals “shall” dismiss an appeal that is not filed within the twenty day deadline for filing a notice of appeal.3
Our decision today to dismiss this appeal should in no way be interpreted that we approve of the Order issued by Judge Henry or that we conclude that the proceedings before Judge Henry were free from errors of procedure, fact and law. Our decision today merely reflects our respect for the rule established by the Tribal Council that requires us to dismiss an appeal when the notice of appeal is filed after the deadline set by the Council.
9 NICS App. 12, COLEGROVE AND COLEGROVE v. MCLAUGHLIN (February 2009) p. 14
We do note that while Judge Henry’s August 28, 2008 Order After Hearing includes sections entitled “Findings of Fact” and “Conclusions of Law” and invokes arguments regarding “title” and “adverse possession,” the legally binding portion of Judge Henry’s Order, set forth under the sections entitled “The Court Finds” and “The Court Orders” on page four of the Order, is extremely narrow. Judge Henry’s Order finds that Eugene Colegrove lawfully designated Jimaica Gene McLaughlin as his successor and denies Ms. Colegrove’s request for a restraining order and claims regarding unlawful detainer and theft of personal property. Nothing in Judge Henry’s Order addresses the status of the land itself or whether the transfer of Eugene Colegrove’s assignment was approved by the Tribal Council, as seems to be required by numerous provisions of the Tribal Land Ordinance.4 Nothing in Judge Henry’s Order addresses whether the transfer is effective for only the remainder of the term of Eugene Colegrve’s original fifty year assignment, or if it constitutes a renewal of the assignment for an additional fifty years.5 And nothing in Judge Henry’s Order prohibits Ms. Colegrove from seeking a determination from the Land Department and the Tribal Council concerning the validity of the transfer of the assignment and the current status of the land itself under the Tribal Land Ordinance.6
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is 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.
We apply the version of the rules in effect on the date the Notice of Appeal was filed.
Entry of judgment is defined by HVTC Title 3, Rule 34, which incorporates by reference HVTC Title 3, Rule 6(a)(2), and provides that Federal Rules of Civil procedure 52(b), 58, 59 and 60(b) may be cited as persuasive in interpreting the Hoopa Valley rules. Based on our review of the Hoopa Valley and Federal rules, it appears the reference in Rule 34 to Rule 6(a)(2) is a scrivener’s error and the reference should actually be to Rule 6(a)(1). Under the combined operation of Rule 34 and Rule 6(a) of HVTC Title 3, a judgment is “effective” and deemed “entered” at such time as (1) the judgment is “set forth on a separate document” and (2) the clerk makes a notation in the civil docket for that case that shows “the substance of each order or judgment of the court and of the returns showing execution of process,” along with “the date the entry is made.” This reading of the Hoopa Valley rules is supported by our reading of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, which defines the time of entry as that time when the rules requiring a separate document have been complied with and when the clerk has noted the entry of judgment in the docket. Here, the trial judge issued the judgment on a separate document on August 28, 2008, and the clerk’s docket includes the notations that the Order was entered and served by mail on August 28, 2008.
“This Court has previously held that deadlines in Hoopa Valley Tribal Ordinances are jurisdictional in nature.” Dodge v. Hoopa Valley Gaming Commission, 7 NICS App. 51, 56 (Hoopa Valley Tribal Ct. App. 2005), citing Tribal Education Department v. Nixon, 4 NICS App. 171, 173 (Hoopa Valley Tribal Ct. App. 1997), wherein the Court of Appeals stated “[t]he timeliness of filing of [the] appeal concerns the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the matter ….” See also, Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Ray Matilton, No. A-99-010 (Hoopa Valley Tribal Ct. App. 2000) (appeal filed by Tribe dismissed because notice of appeal was filed after the deadline). The Untied States Supreme Court, whose decisions may be cited as persuasive in regards to the Hoopa Valley Rules of Appellate Procedure under HVTC Title 2, Chapter 6, has ruled that the time limit for filing a notice of appeal “is mandatory and jurisdictional. The purpose of the rule is clear: It is to set a definite point of time when litigation shall be at an end, unless within that time the prescribed application has been made; and if it has not, to advise prospective appellees that they are freed of the appellant's demands. Any other construction of the statute would defeat its purpose.” Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Illinois, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
See, e.g., HVTC 10.7.3.1; HVTC 10.7.7.1; HVTC 10.8.6.18; HVTC 10.8.6.20; HVTC 10.13.7.1.B.
See HVTC 10.7.3.1; HVTC 10.8.6.2; HVTC 10.8.6.16.
See HVTC 10.7 and HVTC 10.8, and specifically HVTC 10.8.5.