Balyeat Law, PC v. Pettit

• Citation: 967 P.2d 398,291 Mont. 196,1998 MT 252
• Decision Date: 20 October 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-647,97-647
• Parties: , 1998 MT 252 BALYEAT LAW, PC, as Trustee, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Georgina Beverly PETTIT, Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Montana

Page 398

967 P.2d 398

291 Mont. 196, 1998 MT 252

BALYEAT LAW, PC, as Trustee, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Georgina Beverly PETTIT, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 97-647.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs Feb. 18, 1998.

Decided Oct. 20, 1998.

Regan Whitworth, Balyeat Law Offices, Missoula, for Appellant.

Andrea J. Olsen, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Tribal Legal Services, Pablo, for Respondent.

WILLIAM E. HUNT, Sr., Justice.

¶1 Balyeat Law, P.C., as Trustee, (Balyeat) appeals from an order of the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, granting Georgina Beverly Pettit's (Beverly) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

¶2 The following issues were raised on appeal:

¶3 1. Did the District Court err when it addressed whether the Justice Court properly entered the default judgment and whether the state court had jurisdiction over this case?

¶4 2. Do the state courts of Montana have subject matter jurisdiction over an action to collect a debt for medical bills arising out of transactions on the Flathead Reservation, brought by a non-Indian creditor against an enrolled member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes who resides on the reservation and whose spouse incurred the debt?

¶5 3. Do the state courts of Montana have subject matter jurisdiction over an action to collect a debt for medical bills arising out of transactions that occurred off the Flathead Reservation but within the State of Montana, brought by a non-Indian creditor against an enrolled member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes who resides on the reservation and whose spouse incurred the debt?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶6 Beverly Pettit is an enrolled member of the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes (Tribes). She has resided within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Reservation her entire life. The record reveals that she works for Mission Valley Power, a business entity owned by the Tribes, and that all her assets are located on the reservation. On August 10, 1991, she married Lyle Pettit. Lyle is not a member of the Tribes, although he also lives within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Reservation.

¶7 Lyle incurred medical debts at three medical institutions: St. Luke Community Hospital (St. Luke's), Rittenour Medical Clinic, and Community Medical Center. St. Luke's is located in Lake County, within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Reservation. Rittenour Medical Clinic is located in Sanders County, outside the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Reservation. The Community Medical Center is located in Missoula County, also outside the exterior boundaries of the reservation. Although the District Court made no findings of fact as to when the medical debts were incurred, it appears from the record that Lyle incurred some of his debts at St. Luke's in July 1989 and February 1991, prior to his marriage to ¶8 All three medical institutions appointed Balyeat as trustee for Lyle's debts. On May 1, 1995, Balyeat filed a complaint in Lake County Justice Court alleging that Beverly was indebted to it for $1843.60 for goods and services provided to Lyle by the three medical institutions. Balyeat did not name Lyle as a defendant. On June 14, 1995, the Justice of the Peace entered a default judgment against Beverly for the requested sum plus interests and costs.

Beverly. The remainder of the debts were incurred after his marriage. None of the medical debts were incurred by Beverly.

¶9 On January 17, 1996, Beverly filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, contending in part that the Lake County Justice Court had neither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction over her because she was a member of the Tribes residing within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Reservation and because the debts were incurred by her husband Lyle both before and during their marriage. On February 27, 1996, the Justice of the Peace denied her motion without any opinion or rationale stated.

¶10 Beverly appealed to the District Court on March 7, 1996, and on July 17, 1996, the District Court entered an order granting her motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court did not support its order with any memorandum of opinion or rationale. Balyeat appealed to this Court. The record on appeal, however, was devoid of any affidavits, hearing testimony or discovery establishing what the facts actually were. Moreover, there was no memorandum of opinion or rationale of the court whose decision we were requested to affirm, modify or reverse. In light of the complexity and sensitivity of the issues involving state court jurisdiction over reservation Indians in civil matters, we thus remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to develop a factual record and render findings of fact, conclusions of law and a memorandum of opinion. We also instructed the parties on any further appeal of this case to this Court to cite and argue legal authorities that pertain to the specific factual record. See Balyeat Law, PC v. Pettit (1997), 281 Mont. 95, 931 P.2d 50.

¶11 On August 27, 1997, the District Court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law and order, granting Beverly's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that the issue of the state court's jurisdiction was properly before it, because the issue of the court's subject matter jurisdiction could be raised at any time. It applied the three-part test articulated in State ex rel. Iron Bear v. District Court (1973), 162 Mont. 335, 512 P.2d 1292 and held that the court did not have jurisdiction over the action because Beverly was a member of the Tribes and under Montana precedent, the exercise of state jurisdiction would interfere with reservation self-government. The court further held that the Tribes and the state of Montana had not agreed to concurrent jurisdiction over debt collection actions pursuant to Public Law 280. Finally, it held that § 40-2-106, MCA, did not subject Beverly to liability for Lyle's debts, because that statute did not confer jurisdiction which was otherwise precluded, and Beverly had not engaged in significant off-reservation contacts so as to render her subject to the jurisdiction of the state court in this matter. This appeal followed. The case is now ready for review.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶12 Whether to dismiss a claim based on lack of jurisdiction presents a question of law. We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether they are correct. In re Marriage of Skillen (Mont.1998), 287 Mont. 399, p 9, 1998 MT 43, p 9, 956 P.2d 1, p 9 (citing Poteat v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. (1996), 277 Mont. 117, 119, 918 P.2d 677, 679).

ISSUE ONE

¶13 Did the District Court err when it addressed whether the Justice Court properly entered the default judgment and whether the state court had jurisdiction over this case?

¶14 Balyeat contends that the District Court had no authority to review whether the Justice Court properly entered a default judgment. It points to § 25-33-303 ¶15 It is well-settled that the issue of a court's subject matter jurisdiction may be presented at any time. See Rule 12(h)(3), M.R.Civ.P. ("Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.") (emphasis added). See also In re Marriage of Skillen, p 10 ("A motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time and by either party, or by the court itself."); Geiger v. Pierce (1988), 233 Mont. 18, 21, 758 P.2d 279, 281 ("It is a fundamental axiom of our legal system that the issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be invoked at any time in the course of a proceeding.") (citing In re Marriage of Lance (1984), 213 Mont. 182, 186, 690 P.2d 979, 981). This is true even if subject matter jurisdiction is not attacked until after the entry of default. See, e.g., Larrivee v. Morigeau (1979), 184 Mont. 187, 192, 602 P.2d 563, 566, cert. den., 445 U.S. 964, 100 S.Ct. 1653, 64 L.Ed.2d 240. In short, a party can never waive or consent to subject matter jurisdiction where there is no basis for the court to exercise jurisdiction. In re Marriage of Skillen, p 10 (citing In re Marriage of Miller (1993), 259 Mont. 424, 427, 856 P.2d 1378, 1380). Therefore, notwithstanding Balyeat's arguments that Beverly did not present the issue in the proper fashion or identify any legal issues on the face of the complaint, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction is not waived and the court cannot refuse to entertain the motion to dismiss. We hold that the District Court did not err when it considered the issue of the state court's jurisdiction and did not err in determining whether the Justice Court had properly entered the default judgment.

                MCA, which provides that a party may not appeal a judgment by default rendered in justice court "except on questions of law which appear on the face of the papers or proceedings and except in cases when the justice's or city court has abused its discretion in ... refusing to set aside a default or judgment."   In this case, Balyeat argues that although Beverly raised the jurisdictional issue in her motion to set aside the default judgment, she identified nothing on the face of the complaint that indicates subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking.  It further contends that she never actually argued that the Justice Court abused its discretion nor did she establish any evidence supporting such a claim.  Balyeat maintains that the court therefore had no authority either to address the jurisdictional issue or set aside the default judgment.  We disagree
                

ISSUE TWO

¶16 Do the state courts of Montana have subject matter jurisdiction over an action to collect a debt for medical bills arising out of transactions on the Flathead Reservation, brought by a non-Indian creditor against an enrolled member of the Confederated...