SAUK-SUIATTLE HOUSING DEPT. v. WELBORN

9 NICS App. 45, SAUK-SUIATTLE HOUSING DEPT. v. WELBORN (December 2009)

IN THE SAUK-SUIATTLE TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

SAUK-SUIATTLE INDIAN TRIBE

DARRINGTON, WASHINGTON

Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Housing Dept., Plaintiff,

Kemo Welborn, Defendant.

No. SAU-Civ-08/09-004 (December 9, 2009)

SYLLABUS^*

Trial court referred a letter from defendant containing the word “appeal” to the Court of Appeals to be treated as a notice of appeal. Court of Appeals holds that the letter is not a notice of appeal, and should be treated as a motion for reconsideration or a motion to vacate judgment and grant a new trial. Matter remanded to trial court for further proceedings.

Before: Daniel A. Raas, Chief Judge; Randy Allen Doucet, Appellate Judge; Raquel Montoya-Lewis, Appellate Judge.

OPINION

Raas, C.J.:

This matter comes before the Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to a letter filed by Kemo Welborn with the Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Court on August 31, 2009. Because the letter included the word “appeal” in its text, the trial judge decided to treat the letter as a notice of appeal and forwarded the letter to this Court for review. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Mr. Welborn’s August 31 letter should be treated as a motion for reconsideration rather than a notice of appeal, and we therefore remand this matter for further proceedings by the trial court.¹

9 NICS App. 45, SAUK-SUIATTLE HOUSING DEPT. v. WELBORN (December 2009) p. 46

I. Factual and Procedural History

This case began on August 10, 2009, when the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Housing Department filed a complaint for unlawful detainer and potential damages of tribal housing, naming Kemo Welborn as the defendant. According to the complaint, Mr. Welborn entered into a month-to-month rental agreement with the Housing Department on November 4, 2008 and immediately fell behind on his payments. On July 16, 2009, the Housing Committee issued a Notice of Termination of Rental Agreement (complaint, exhibit G). The Notice informed Mr. Welborn that his rental agreement was terminated “immediately,” but also stated that his July rent would be pro-rated if he vacated the premises before the end of July. Mr. Welborn was personally served the Notice on July 16, 2009 (complaint, exhibit G). The Notice informed Mr. Welborn that he had seven days to appeal the decision pursuant to the Housing Ordinance. Mr. Welborn apparently did not appeal the termination or vacate the premises. On August 10, 2009, the Housing Department filed a complaint for unlawful detainer, judgment for $920 in past rent, and such other damages as may be shown in a subsequent proceeding following Mr. Welborn’s removal from the premises.

On August 21, 2009, the Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Court filed a Writ of Restitution and Judgment for Past-Due Rent and Damages. Although the Writ of Restitution and Judgment does not mention appearances, based on Mr. Welborn’s August 31 letter, it appears that the Writ and Judgment were entered by default as Mr. Welborn did not appear for the hearing.

On August 31, 2009, Mr. Welborn filed his letter in the Tribal Court claiming that he had arranged for payment of his overdue rent and had arranged transportation with the Tribe to his court date, but negligence on the part of Tribal officials resulted in the payment not being applied to his account and his failure to appear for the hearing. Because Mr. Welborn’s August 31 letter includes the entreaty “Please your honor consider my appeal,” the trial judge has forwarded the case to the Court of Appeals to be treated as such.

II. Analysis

The Court of Appeals must make the threshold determination of whether to treat Mr. Welborn’s letter as a notice of appeal, or remand the case to the trial court to be treated as a motion for reconsideration or motion to vacate the writ/judgment and grant a new trial based on the factors cited in the letter.

The role of any court of appeals is limited to reviewing actions of the lower court to determine whether the lower court committed any errors that affected the outcome of the case. Rule 7 of the Sauk-Suiattle Rules of Court - Appellate explains that “a case appealed must not be tried anew” and that the scope of review of the Sauk-Suiattle Court of Appeals is limited to “questions of law.” Mr. Welborn’s letter does not claim the trial court made any error - the letter alleges only that Tribal officials responsible for making certain payments and providing

9 NICS App. 45, SAUK-SUIATTLE HOUSING DEPT. v. WELBORN (December 2009) p. 47

transportation on Mr. Welborn’s behalf committed errors. Although Mr. Welborn uses the word “appeal” in his letter, the word “appeal” is used in its informal sense, and the letter is directed to the trial judge. Because the letter does not suggest that the trial court committed any error of law, there is not any relief that could be granted by the Court of Appeals if the letter is treated as a notice of appeal.

The Sauk-Suiattle code does not address motions for reconsideration and the Tribe does not appear to have any written rules of civil procedure aside from a few general provisions in Chapters 1-3 of the Tribe’s Law and Order Code. However, the S-SRCA specifically states a party may appeal “with or without first moving for reconsideration,” S-SRCA 1(b), and the L&O Code provides that if “the course of a court proceeding is not specified in” the L&O Code, “any suitable process may be adopted which appears most in keeping with the spirit of Sauk-Suiattle tribal law.” § 2.010.

While we commend Judge Pouley for exercising sound discretion in referring this matter to the Court of Appeals, in light of the above considerations, we conclude that Mr. Welborn’s August 31, 2009 letter is not a notice of appeal, and should instead be treated as a motion for reconsideration, or in the alternative, a motion to vacate judgment and grant a new trial.

III. Conclusion

This matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this order.

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.

Rule 5 of the Sauk-Suiattle Rules of Court - Appellate provides that “within thirty (30) days from the date of filing of a written notice of appeal, the appellate panel shall convene to hear the case on appeal at such place as may be designated, unless continued by order of the appellate panel’s chief judge.” In this case, it was not possible for the panel to convene or for the Chief Judge to issue an order within thirty days because the Tribal Council had yet to appoint the appellate judges. Furthermore, because we conclude Mr. Welborn’s letter was not in fact a notice of appeal, Rule 5 does not apply.