Coquille Indian Housing Authority v. Harrison, (1999)

• Court: Coquille Indian Tribal Court
• Writing for the Court: DON OWEN COSTELLO CHIEF JUDGE.
• Decision Date: 06 April 1999
• Docket Number: H 98-005
• Citation: Coquille Indian Housing Authority v. Harrison (Coquille Indian Tribal Ct. 1999)
• Parties: COQUILLE INDIAN HOUSING AUTHORITY, PLAINTIFF, v. VICKI AND HOBART HARRISON, DEFENDANT

COQUILLE INDIAN HOUSING AUTHORITY, PLAINTIFF, v. VICKI AND HOBART HARRISON, DEFENDANT

No. H 98-005

Coquille Indian Tribal Court

April 6, 1999

OPINION

DON OWEN COSTELLO CHIEF JUDGE.

Trial of this matter was held on March 19, 1999 beginning at 9:00 a.m. pursuant to notice to the parties. Present throughout trial on behalf of plaintiff were plaintiff's lawyer Robert J. Miller, and plaintiff's representative, Shawn F. Scott. Defendants Vicki Harrison and Hobart Harrison were present throughout trial and represented themselves in the trial of this matter. The parties called witnesses who testified under oath and were subject to cross-examination. Exhibits were offered by the parties and were received into evidence. The proceedings were recorded on tape by interim Court Clerk Judi Pannell.

At the conclusion of the trial, the record was closed and the case was taken under advisement by the Court. For the reasons set forth below, the Court is of the opinion that plaintiff be awarded Judgment against defendants, and each of them, in the sum of $2,244.45 and, further, that defendants' counterclaims be dismissed and that plaintiff have Judgment thereon.

The parties' claims.

In its amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that this Court has personal jurisdiction over plaintiff as it is a Tribal entity and personal jurisdiction over the defendants as former residents on the reservation and because defendant Vicki Harrison is a Tribal member; that plaintiff is a Tribally created Housing Authority that operates housing for the Coquille Indian Tribe; that defendants rented property owned by plaintiff located at 2609 Mexeye Loop, Coos Bay, Oregon 97420 on the reservation; that defendants entered into a Lease for the property on October 29, 1996; and that no serious defects were noted in an inspection of the property on October 20, 1998. These allegations were admitted by defendants in their answer and are proven by evidence offered at trial.

Plaintiffs allege further that defendants were evicted for cause by notice served on November 3, 1998, with an eviction time of November 6, 1998 at 5:00 p.m.; that after the premises were vacated, inspection was performed, and that there was damage to the premises, which was new and deliberate; that defendants owe plaintiff $2,494.45, after giving credit to defendants for security deposits held by plaintiff, this being the sum required to repair, clean up and renovate the property back to usable condition; and plaintiff requests that defendants be required to pay such amount to plaintiff together with attorney fees and court costs and any other remedy justice requires. Defendants deny these allegations in their answer.

In their answer, defendants allege that at all material times they were residential tenants entitled to possession of the dwelling; that they were unlawfully excluded from the dwelling on November 6, 1998 when Robert D. Van Loo, an agent of the plaintiff, changed the locks on the dwelling unit; and that the dwelling unit was rented for use as a residential dwelling unit and was covered by the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, ORS 90.100 et sec.

As affirmative defenses, set offs, recoupment and counterclaims defendants allege that (1) pursuant ORS 90.322(7), defendants are entitled to statutory damages equal to at least one months rent, which in this case would be $220.00, because on or about November 6, 1998, plaintiff's agent, Robert D Van Loo, unlawfully entered the rental unit without giving a 24 hour written notice, getting permission from the tenant, or having other good cause to enter; (2) pursuant to ORS 90.375, defendants are entitled to recover from plaintiff two months rent as damages, in the sum of $440.00, because on November 6, 1998, at a time when defendants were lawfully entitled to possession, plaintiff unlawfully excluded defendants from the dwelling by changing the locks on the door or causing the locks to be changed, and defendants on such date had not abandoned or surrendered possession of the dwelling and plaintiff had not obtained a judgment of restitution through the Tribal Court pursuant ORS Chapter 105; and (3) pursuant to ORS 90.425(15), defendants are entitled to recover twice the actual damages suffered, for a total of $2,000.00, for loss to defendants' personal property because on or about November 6, 1998 plaintiffs seized and retained defendants' personal property without complying with ORS 90.425(1), (2), (3), and that in addition, as a result of plaintiffs unlawful seizure of defendants' property, defendants are relieved of any liability for unpaid rent or any damages alleged to have been incurred, pursuant to ORS 90.425(15). Defendants pray for judgment that plaintiff take nothing by its compliant, and damages against plaintiff in the total sum of $2,660.00, and for such other relief as the Court may deem equitable and just.

In response, plaintiff denies all of defendants' allegations and affirmative defenses and counterclaims, and plaintiff denies that Oregon Law has any application in Indian Country on the Coquille Indian Reservation.

The Court has territorial jurisdiction to hear this case because the facts which give rise to this dispute arose on the reservation of the Coquille Indian Tribe. CITC 610.200.1(b). The Court has subject matter jurisdiction because the dispute is an action in law falling within the Court's broad judicial authority. Constitution of the Coquille Indian Tribe, Article VII, Section 4; CITC 610.200.1 (1), (2).

Facts.

Having considered all of the evidence, the Court finds the following facts to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Defendants, and each of them, signed a Coquille Indian Housing Authority Rental Lease (Lease) on October 29, 1996 for the rental of the subject premises at 2609 Mexeye Loop, Coos Bay, Oregon (Exhibit A). The Lease term was for one month commencing October 24, 1996, with automatic continuation "...from month to month thereafter subject only to respective rights of the parties to terminate..." as provided therein. Lease, Exhibit A, paragraph I.

Paragraph IV A of the Lease provides in relevant part that the "...Resident shall refrain self, household members and guests from destroying, defacing, damaging or removing any part of the unit or community development. The resident shall be charged for the cost of damage repair and restoration."

Paragraph IV C provides in relevant part that the "...Resident or any member of the Resident's household or a guest or other persons under the Resident's control shall not engage in violence or any criminal activity, including drug-related criminal activity, in the housing community or CIHA office area. Such activity is a serious Lease violation and is grounds for termination of the Lease and immediate eviction. The term `drug-related criminal activity' means the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution, use, or possession with the intent to manufacture, sell, distribute, or use of a controlled substance (as defined in Section 102 of the Controlled Substance Act (21 U.S.C. 802)." (Emphasis in original)

IV C provides in relevant part that an "expedited grievance procedure will be available to tenants evicted under Section IV, paragraph C of the Lease....where the eviction is for violence or criminal activity or a drug-related criminal activity."

Paragraph IV D of the Lease states that resident "...agrees to pay reasonable charges for repair of damage to the dwelling unit cause by the Resident, his family or any persons in the dwelling unit or on the dwelling property with the permission of the Resident."

Paragraph V E of the Lease provides in relevant part that "... in the event the Resident or any member of his household or guest has committed, or attempted to commit or threatened to commit any acts that physically injure any person lawfully upon the premises or any other premises of the CIHA or substantially damage any property of the CIHA, another Resident, or any person lawfully upon premises or other premises of the CIHA including drug dealing, this Lease may be terminated on 24 hour written notice." Paragraph V F provides in relevant part that immediately upon termination of Lease becoming effective, "the Resident shall quietly and peaceably remove himself, his family and his property from the premises and surrender possession thereof and the equipment and furnishings therein, in the condition as leased, reasonable wear and tear excepted. All amounts owed by CIHA by the Resident shall immediately become due and payable."

The premises were new when defendants took possession on October 24, 1996. Although defendants took good care of the place initially, defendants had continuing problems in complying with the conditions of the Lease during their tenancy. Shawn F. Scott, Director of CIHA, and his employees tried to help defendants more than most residents and that extraordinary efforts were made to accommodate them. For example, in early 1998, CIHA served a notice of termination on the defendants. Defendants filed a formal grievance of the notice of termination. Defendants avoided eviction in that instance by entering into an agreement to take certain steps in their personal lives, including drug counseling for Mr. Harrison, as a condition of continued tenancy.

On October 30, 1998, defendant Hobart Harrison became involved in an altercation with Calvin Summers and Thad Duggan at the Calvin Summers' residence, which is located across the street from defendants' premises. The Summers home is premises of the CIHA. The altercation was instigated by defendant Hobart Harrison. During this altercation, Hobart Harrison intentionally physically injured Calvin Summers and Thad Duggan in the Summers home. After the physical...