Eggers v. Richardstiff, (2001)
| Decision Date | 13 September 2001 |
| Docket Number | CIV. APP. 00-06 |
| Parties | MARGARET J. S. EGGERS, PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, v. RICHARDSTIFF, DEFENDANT/APPELLANT |
| Court | Crow Court of Appeals in And For the Crow Indian Reservation Crow Agency Montana |
Decision entered November 20, 2001
¶1 This is an appeal by defendant Richard Stiff from the permanent Restraining Order issued by the Tribal Court (Yellowtail, Special Judge) on February 4, 2000, which, among other things, ordered Mr. Stiff not to have any contact with plaintiff Margaret Eggers or her family for a period of one year.
¶2 In this case involving two non-Indians, we hold that the Tribal Court had subject matter jurisdiction to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant's conduct at Little Big Horn College and at the plaintiff's residence. However, as further explained below, this court vacates the Restraining Order because the Tribal Court improperly decided the whole case at a show cause hearing for a preliminary injunction, thus denying Mr. Stiff of his right to a trial or final hearing on disputed factual issues under the Crow Rules of Civil Procedure.
¶3 Defendant Stiff is non-Indian, who at all pertinent times has resided outside the Crow Reservation in Billings. Plaintiff Eggers is also non-Indian who resides within the boundaries of the Reservation with her husband, who is a member of the Crow Tribe. At the time this case was filed, both parties were employed as science instructors at Little Big Horn College ("LBHC") in Crow Agency. LBHC is chartered pursuant to the Tribally Controlled Community College or University Assistance Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq. Its main facilities where the parties both worked are located on trust land owned by the Crow Tribe.
¶4 This case grew out of a professional dispute between the parties going back at least to the spring of 1999, and involving matters such as curriculum development, course content and the use of grant funds. The dispute culminated in Mr. Stiff filing a grievance against Ms. Eggers on January 3 2000, requesting, among other things, that she be reduced to part-time teaching status or discharged from her employment with the College. Mr. Stiff also filed a grievance that same day against department head Donna Wald, complaining of her failure to resolve his disagreements with Ms. Eggers and requesting a letter of apology.
¶5 On January 4, 2000, Ms. Eggers filed a sworn "Complaint/Motion for TRO" in the Crow Tribal Court requesting an injunction and a detailed temporary restraining order ("TRO") against Mr. Stiff having any contact with her or her family. In the space on the form provided by the Court, Ms. Eggers stated that the reason for the injunction was "harassment & stalking," as more particularly described in the exhibit attached to her complaint.[1]
¶6 Based on Ms. Eggers sworn complaint and a finding that she was likely to suffer "immediate and irreparable injury," the Tribal Court (Birdinground, C.J.) issued an ex parte "Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause" the same day, on January 4th. The TRO enjoined the Defendant against entering Ms. Eggers' residence, and restrained both parties against any form of contact, or threatening or harassing each other anywhere. The Order also directed both parties appear at a hearing on January 14 to show cause "why the foregoing Order shall or shall not remain in effect." The Order warned in all-capital letters that "failure to obey may subject you to mandatory arrest and criminal prosecution, which may result in your incarceration for up to one year for criminal contempt."
¶7 On January 6, 2000, the day the complaint and TRO were served on him, Mr. Stiff filed an affidavit stating that he opposed the TRO and requesting more time to prepare for the hearing. In response, the Tribal Court (Yellowtail, S.J.) issued a new TRO on January 10 with identical terms and rescheduling the show cause hearing to January 21, 2000. On January 18, Ms Eggers filed an affidavit requesting a further continuance because her husband, a material witness, would be out of town on the rescheduled hearing date. The court apparently did not act on her request before the hearing.
¶8 In the meantime, the record reflects that department head Donna Wald advised Ms. Eggers in a written memo not to come to work on January 10 "to protect you from possible harm from Mr. Stiff." See Plaintiff's Hearing Exh. C (hereinafter, "Pl. Exh."). On January 10, Mr. Stiff's former supervisor wrote a memo to Ms. Wald and the LBHC president describing a conversation he had with Mr. Stiff on January 7, and stating that he believed Ms. Eggers to be in "possible physical danger" because Mr. Stiff's statement about Ms. Eggers, "though not vulgar, concerned me because it was expressed with great anger." See Pl. Exh. D. The following week, Ms. Pease Pretty-On-Top arranged for Ms. Eggers to teach her classes off the main campus, and provided her with a body guard. Finally, although it is not clear from the hearing testimony when or how it occurred, Mr. Stiff was terminated from his employment at LBHC sometime before the show cause hearing on January 21, 2000.
¶9 At the show cause hearing on January 21, Ms. Eggers was represented by lay counsel, and Mr. Stiff appeared pro se. Ms. Eggers testified as to the matters in her complaint (see Note 1 above), but the Court initially refused to admit as hearsay Ms. Eggers' recounting of what her husband had told her about Mr. Stiff parking in their driveway. Ms. Eggers also testified that Mr. Stiff was even more of a threat to her since the TRO had been served on him and he had been terminated from his position at LBHC.
¶10 Ms. Wald and Ms. Pease Pretty-On-Top testified on Ms. Eggers' behalf. Based on their backgrounds in counseling, and over objections by Mr. Stiff, both were qualified by the Court to give opinion testimony as expert witnesses on the question of whether Ms. Eggers was in physical danger from Mr. Stiff. Both testified that, in their professional opinions, she was in danger. Ms. Wald testified that her opinion was influenced by her concern over the apparent stalking behavior reported by Ms. Eggers' husband and relayed to her on an answering machine message from Ms. Eggers. Ms. Pease Pretty-On-Top testified that her own opinion was not in any way based on that report, but instead on the memos and grievances in the LBHC files. Both testified that they advised Ms. Eggers to obtain the TRO against Mr. Stiff in early January. During the presentation of Ms. Eggers' case, the Court twice admonished Mr. Stiff for making gestures and for raising his voice while cross-examining a witness.
¶11 Two witnesses testified on behalf of Mr. Stiff. A friend, Jason Cummings, testified that they rode back and forth to work together from Billings every day, and they had never parked in the Eggers' driveway. LBHC science instructor Mark Waddington testified that Mr. Stiff's criticisms of Ms. Eggers at LBHC were on a professional level, consistent in tone and approach to practices he had seen in other institutions, and did not imply any physical threat. Mr. Waddington said that he had never observed any conflict between the parties outside the faculty meetings. After the Court warned about the risk of presenting character testimony, Mr. Cummings and Mr. Waddington both testified that they did not believe Mr. Stiff was a physical danger to anyone. Following their testimony, the Court allowed Ms. Eggers to testify in rebuttal about her fear for the seriousness of the situation after her husband told her that he had seen Mr. Stiff park in their driveway for several minutes on two occasions.
¶12 At the close of the hearing, the Judge Yellowtail explained that the professional dispute between the parties was only a context for their personal dispute, and that the relevant question in the court proceedings was whether Ms. Eggers was endangered in any way by Mr. Stiff. He recognized the conflicting testimony from the two sets of witnesses, but concluded that the scales of witness credibility were tipped in Ms. Eggers' favor. He also observed from the parties' courtroom behavior that Ms. Eggers was afraid of Mr. Stiff, and that he had difficulty in controlling in volatile temper. Therefore, the Court issued a verbal order from the bench restraining Mr. Stiff from contacting Ms. Eggers or her family, and directed Ms. Eggers' counsel to draft proposed a proposed order.
¶13 The Tribal Court issued its final Restraining Order on February 4, 2000, supported by written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Court found that Ms. Eggers "established a factual basis for her fear of the Defendant[;]" that Mr. Stiff's "angry outbursts and hostile behavior toward the Plaintiff during the hearingà substantiated the Plaintiff's fear of the Defendant[;]" that "the Defendant's pattern of behavior toward the Plaintiff has been aggressive and hostile[;]" and that "the actions of the Defendant have been harassing, intimidating and have posed a threat to the personal safety of the Plaintiff and her family[.]" See Restraining Order at 1-2. The Court concluded that the evidence was "sufficient . . . to establish a reasonable basis that the Defendant does pose a threat to the personal safety of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's family[,]" and that the Plaintiff "would likely suffer immediate and irreparable injury or harm if the Defendant is not enjoined from any and all contact with the Plaintiff or Plaintiff's family[.]" Id. at 2-3.
¶14 The operative terms of the Tribal Court's Restraining Order: (1) prohibited Mr. Stiff from any contact whatsoever with the Ms. Eggers, in any manner or an form; (2) prohibited Mr. Stiff from entering Ms. Eggers' residence, property,...
To continue reading
Request your trial