Estate of Edward Benedict Defender, 47 IBIA 271 (2008)

Docket Number: IBIA 06-109

Linked as:

Extract

Estate of Edward Benedict Defender, 47 IBIA 271 (2008)

INTERIOR BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALS Estate of Edward Benedict Defender 47 IBIA 271 (10/15/2008) Related Board cases: 36 IBIA 280 44 IBIA 8

United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS INTERIOR BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALS 801 NORTH QUINCY STREET SUITE 300 ARLINGTON, VA 22203

ESTATE OF EDWARD BENEDICT DEFENDER

Order Affirming Dismissal of Petition for Rehearing but Modifying Order of Modification

Docket No. IBIA 06-109

October 15, 2008

The Superintendent of the Standing Rock Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs (Superintendent; BIA), appealed to the Board of Indian Appeals (Board) from an Order Dismissing Petition for Rehearing entered on August 10, 2006, by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Richard L. Reeh in the estate of Edward Benedict Defender (Decedent), deceased Standing Rock Sioux Indian, Probate No. TC-037 H 00-1. The Superintendent had sought rehearing from an Order of Modification1 entered by Indian Probate Judge (IPJ) George Tah-bone on December 22, 2005, following the Board's remand in Estate of Benedict Edward Defender, 36 IBIA 280 (2001).2 The Superintendent argued that the Order of Modification misapplied the Standing Rock Heirship Lands Act (SRHLA or the Act), 96 Pub. L. No. 274, 94 Stat. 537 (Jun. 17, 1980), by allowing Decedent's ex-wife, whom the IPJ found was non-Indian, to receive a devise of Decedent's Indian trust or restricted real property on the Standing Rock Reservation, subject to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's right to obtain the property by paying its fair market value. Judge Reeh, to whom the case had been transferred, found that the Superintendent's petition for rehearing was a successive petition for rehearing. Successive petitions for rehearing are not allowed under 43 C.F.R. § 4.241(f), and therefore Judge Reeh concluded1

that he lacked authority to consider the Superintendent's petition.3 The Superintendent now seeks review of Judge Reeh's order and asks that the Board either vacate Judge Reeh's order of dismissal and remand the matter to him for a decision consistent with the terms of the SRHLA, or, in the alternative, reopen this matter on the Board's authority and decide the distribution of the estate pursuant to the terms of the SRHLA. We conclude that Judge Reeh correctly dismissed the Superintendent's petition for re...

See the full content of this document