Coeur D'Alene Indian Housing Authority v. Isadore, (1990)

• Decision Date: 17 May 1990
• Docket Number: CI89-001
• Parties: COEUR D'ALENE INDIAN HOUSING AUTHORITY v. DELPHINE ISADORE
• Court: Kootenai Tribal Court of Appeals Kootenai Indian Reservation

COEUR D'ALENE INDIAN HOUSING AUTHORITY v. DELPHINE ISADORE

No. CI89-001

Kootenai Tribal Court of Appeals Kootenai Indian Reservation

May 17, 1990

SUMMARY

At a de novo trial of a contract dispute, the Court of Appeals held that since the appellee was unaware of the nature or consequences of the contract at the time of its signing, and appellee was not legally competent, the contract is deemed void and the appellant cannot look for damages arising from its breach.

Before: Elizabeth Fry, Chief Justice; Charles Hostnik Appellate Judge; and Rosemary Irvin, Appellate Judge.

FRY CHIEF JUSTICE.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER

This matter came regularly before this court on June 23, 1989 for a de novo appeal hearing as requested by the Appellant, Coeur d'Alene Indian Housing Authority.The matter was heard before the appellate panel, and both parties were present neither represented by counsel.

The court, having heard testimony, and having reviewed the records and files, makes the following findings.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.The Kootenai Tribal Court entered judgment in this matter on March 2,1989.

2.The Coeur d'Alene Indian Housing Authority requested an appeal by letter on April 5, 1989.

3.The Coeur d'Alene Indian Housing Authority supervises the purchase, maintenance, and repair of all Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing on the Kootenai Indian Reservation.

4.Delphine Isadore signed a contract with the Coeur d'Alene Housing Authority to purchase a HUD house on August 15, 1985.

5.Delphine Isadore was not aware of what she was signing nor of the consequences at the time she signed the aforesaid contract.Delphine Isadore was not aware of the nature of the proceedings against her at the appeal trial, nor was she able to assist in the presentation of her case.

6.In October 1988, Sam Waholi, the local agent for the Coeur d'Alene Indian Housing Authority, removed Delphine Isadore from her house and moved a Martin Andrews into the house.Neither Ms. Isadore nor Mr. Andrews made payments on the house.Damage was done to the house between October 1988 and April 1989, necessitating repairs in April 1989.

7.No one made payments on the house from October 1988 to January 1989, whereupon the Coeur d'Alene Indian Housing Authority moved someone else into the house in May 1989.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.This court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 25 Code of Federal Regulations Section 11.6C, Appellate Proceedings.

2.The Coeur d'Alene Housing Authority filed a timely request for an appeal.

3.This court has jurisdiction of the parties in this action....