9 NICS App. 126, JACKSON v. McCLEOD AND McCLEOD (July 2010)
IN THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION
HOOPA, CALIFORNIA
Muriel Jackson, Petitioner and Appellee,
v.
Sharon McLeod and Douglas McLeod, Respondents and Appellants.
No. UD-09-012/A-10-002 (July 9, 2010)
SYLLABUS*
Trial court issued order provisionally resolving dispute over ownership of certain real and personal property involving tribal trust lands. Court of Appeals holds (1) order is final for purposes of appeal; and (2) notice of appeal was not timely filed, regardless of whether the filing deadline was triggered by the entry of the trial court’s order or a subsequent order of the trial court denying a motion for reconsideration. Appeal dismissed.
Before: Michelle Demmert, Chief Judge; Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Judge; Eric Nielsen, Judge.
OPINION
Demmert, C.J.:
This matter comes before the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to the Notice of Appeal filed by appellants Sharon and Douglas McLeod on May 20, 2010. By its own terms, the Notice of Appeal challenges the April 6, 2010 decision of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court in this matter.1 That decision, in essence, awards ownership of a trailer in which the McLeods reside to the McLeods, but orders the trailer removed from land owned by Ms. Jackson, contingent upon Ms. Jackson securing a letter from a surveyor or the Hoopa Valley Tribal Land Management Division that establishes that the trailer is in fact located on lot # 306, which the Court determined is owned solely by Ms. Jackson. The trial court’s April 6, 2010 decision is designated, in part, as an “amended order.” The sole amendment appears to be a
9 NICS App. 126, JACKSON v. McCLEOD AND McCLEOD (July 2010) p. 127
correction to a scrivener’s error in the court’s original decision issued on March 31, 2010, wherein lot # 306 was in one place incorrectly identified as lot # “360”. The order allows the trailer to removed once the aforementioned letter is secured without further action or review by the court, and therefor is properly deemed a final order for purposes of appeal.
On April 5, 2010, the day before the trial court issued its amended decision, the McLeods filed a Motion for Reconsideration signed by Sharon McLeod. Although the Motion for Reconsideration does not specifically designate the order being appealed, the Motion could only have been seeking reconsideration of the court’s original March 31 order, because that is the only order affecting the parties’ rights that had been entered by the court. On April 12, 2010, the trial Court issued an Order Denying Sharon McCloud’s [sic] Motion for Reconsideration, and Affirming April 6, 2010 Amended Judgment.
The trial court file shows that the Court Clerk entered the court’s April 6 decision on the court’s “Register of Action” on April 6 and mailed copies of the decision to the parties on April 6. Likewise, the trial court file shows that the Court Clerk entered the court’s April 12 order denying the motion for reconsideration on the court’s “Register of Action” on April 12 and mailed copies of that order to the parties on April 12. Based on these filing dates, it is clear that appellants’ Notice of Appeal was filed more than twenty days after entry of the trial court’s April 6, 2010 amended order. The Notice of Appeal was also filed more than twenty days after entry of the trial court’s April 12, 20101 order denying appellants’ motion for reconsideration.
The Hoopa Valley Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that:
Within twenty (20) days from the entry of a final judgment, or judgment on a dispositive motion, a party dissatisfied with the judgment may file a notice of appeal with the clerk of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court. Failure to appeal within this timeline shall constitute a dismissal of the claim. HVTC 2.6.03(a).
Although the Hoopa Valley Rules of Appellate Procedure do not specifically address the effect of a motion “for reconsideration” on the deadline for an appeal, the Rules do expressly provide that if a motion to “alter or amend” a judgment is filed, the twenty day deadline for filing an appeal runs from the date of entry of the order disposing of such a motion.2 HVTC 2.6.03(d).
In addition to the provision of HVTC 2.6.03(a) that failure to file a notice of appeal within twenty days of the entry of judgment “shall constitute a dismissal of the claim,” the Hoopa Valley Rules of Appellate Procedure expressly prohibit the Court of Appeals from
9 NICS App. 126, JACKSON v. McCLEOD AND McCLEOD (July 2010) p. 128
extending the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. HVTC 2.6.17 (“the court may not extend the time to file a notice of appeal”).
Regardless of whether we consider the effective date of the trial court’s decision to be April 6, 2010 or April 12, 2010, the Notice of Appeal was not filed within twenty days of entry of the order. Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals has no choice but to dismiss the appeal.
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.
For unknown reasons, the Notice of Appeal identifies Chief Judge Richard Blake as the Judge who issued the opinion, and the Notice of Appeal alleges a conflict of interest on the part of Judge Blake as one of the bases for the appeal, even though it is apparent from the record that it was Associate Judge Michelle Krieger who presided over the matter and issued each and every ruling in the case.
HVTC 2.6.03(d)(1) includes cross-references to “Rule 60” and “Rule 73”, but does not indicate the source of those rules. Neither Rule 60 nor Rule 73 of the Hoopa Valley Rules of Court set forth in Title 3 of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Code have anything to do with motions for relief from a judgment. The reference to Rule 60 appears to be to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs motions for relief from a judgment or order. The reason for the reference to Rule 73 is not known.