Grondal v. Mill Bay Members Ass'n, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO: 2:09-CV-18-RMP,: 2:09-CV-18-RMP |
| Citation | 471 F.Supp.3d 1095 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Washington |
| Parties | Paul GRONDAL, a Washington resident, Plaintiff, v. MILL BAY MEMBERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Washington non-profit corporation; United States of America; United States Department of Interior; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Francis Abraham; Catherine Garrison ; Maureen Marcellay, Mike Palmer, also known as Michael H. Palmer; James Abraham; Naomi Dick; Annie Wapato; Enid Marchand; Gary Reyes; Paulwapato, Jr.; Lynn Benson ; Darlene Hyland; Randy Marcellay; Francis Reyes; Lydia W. Armeecher; Mary Jo Garrison; Marlene Marcellay; Lucina O'Dell; Mose Sam; Sherman T. Wapato; Sandra Covington; Gabriel Marcellay; Linda Mills ; Linda Saint; Jeff M. Condon; Dena Jackson ; Mike Marcellay; Vivian Pierre; Sonia Vanwoerkon; Wapato Heritage, LLC; Leonard Wapato, Jr.; Derrick D. Zunie, II; Deborah L. Backwell; Judy Zunie; Jaqueline White Plume; Denise N. Zunie; Confederated Tribes Colville Reservation; and Allottees of MA-8, also known as Moses Allotment 8, Defendants. |
Franklin L. Smith, Law Offices of Franklin L. Smith, Seattle, WA, Joseph Q. Ridgeway, Robert R. Siderius, Jr., Sally W. Harmeling, Jacob M. Knutson, Jeffers Danielson Sonn & Aylward PS, Wenatchee, WA, for Plaintiff Paul Grondal.
Joseph Q. Ridgeway, Robert R. Siderius, Jr., Sally W. Harmeling, Jacob M. Knutson, Jeffers Danielson Sonn & Aylward PS, Wenatchee, WA, for Plaintiff Mill Bay Members Association Inc.
Joseph P. Derrig, Pamela Jean DeRusha, Rudolf J. Verschoor, United States Attorney's Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant United States of America.
Pamela Jean DeRusha, Rudolf J. Verschoor, United States Attorney's Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendants United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Timothy Michael Lawlor, Matthew A. Mensik, Witherspoon Kelley Davenport & Toole, Spokane, WA, for Defendants Maureen Marcellay, James Abraham, Lynn Benson, Darlene Hyland, Randy Marcellay, Marlene Marcellay, Gabriel Marcellay, Mike Marcellay.
Manish Borde, Borde Law PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant Gary Reyes.
Tyler D. Hotchkiss, Dale Melvin Foreman, Daniel J. Appel, Foreman, Appel, Hotchkiss & Zimmerman, PLLC, Wenatchee, WA, Emanuel F. Jacobowitz, Nathan J. Arnold, Cloutier Arnold Jacobowitz PLLC, Seattle, WA, R. Bruce Johnston, Law Office of R. Bruce Johnston, Bainbridge Island, WA, for Defendant Wapato Heritage LLC.
Brian Cammiade Gruber, Brian W. Chestnut, Ziontz Chestnut, Seattle, WA, Charissa A. Eichman, Dana Cleveland, Jason C. D'Avignon, Office of the Reservation Attorney-Colville Tribe, Nespelem, WA, for Defendant Confederated Tribes Colville Reservation.
United States Department of Interior, pro se.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, pro se.
Francis Abraham, Spokane Valley, WA, pro se.
Catherine Garrison, Tukwila, WA, pro se.
Maureen Marcellay, Vancouver, WA, pro se.
Mike Palmer, Nespelem, WA, pro se.
James Abraham, Everett, WA, pro se.
Paul Wapato, Jr., Spokane, WA, pro se.
Lynn Benson, Omak, WA, pro se.
Darlene Hyland, Vancouver, WA, pro se.
Randy Marcellay, Omak, WA, pro se.
Francis Reyes, Elmer City, WA, pro se.
Mary Jo Garrison, Seattle, WA, pro se.
Marlene Marcellay, Vancouver, WA, pro se.
Sandra Covington, Omak, WA, pro se.
Gabriel Marcellay, Wellpinit, WA, pro se.
Linda Saint, Omak, WA, pro se.
Jeff M. Condon, Omak, WA, pro se.
Mike Marcellay, Brewster, WA, pro se.
Sonia Vanwoerkon, Lewiston, ID, pro se.
Judy Zunie, Omak, WA, pro se.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE EJECTMENT
This case involves an eleven-year dispute over land on the banks of Lake Chelan known as Moses Allotment No. 8, or "MA-8." MA-8 is highly fractionated allotment land, held in trust by the United States Government for Indian allottees who are predominantly members of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Plaintiffs in this case are non-Indians who represent a group of individuals who purchased camping memberships to use MA-8 for recreational purposes allegedly through 2034. Plaintiffs purchased these camping memberships from William Evans Jr., who had leased MA-8 from the Indian allottees in accordance with federal regulations, in order to sell camping memberships to Plaintiffs. The problem is that Evans' lease of MA-8 expired in 2009, not 2034, due to his failure to renew it. Because Plaintiffs' right to use MA-8 flowed from Evans' lease, that right expired in 2009 along with the lease.
The Court acknowledges that Plaintiffs in this case did not receive what they expected from Evans and his successor in interest, Wapato Heritage, LLC. However, Plaintiffs may not continue to occupy Indian trust land without legal authority to do so.
As described in more detail below, the Moses Allotments are reservation allotments that the Government created consistent with the Moses Agreement for individual Indians that the Government recognized as members of the "Moses Band" of Indians. In 1907, pursuant to the Moses Agreement, MA-8 was allotted to Wapato John via a trust patent, issued by the United States. After Wapato John died, his interests in MA-8 passed to his heirs, and the land became fractionated.
It is undisputed that, by 1979, William Evans, Jr., an heir of Wapato John, owned approximately 5.4% of the beneficial ownership in MA-8. See Wapato Heritage, L.L.C. v. United States , 637 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2011). Evans wanted to use MA-8 to generate a profit for himself and the other allottee landowners. However, as he only owned a small fraction of the beneficial interest in the land, he could not control the land. See ECF No. 90-6 at 9 (). Thus, Evans began communicating with the other allottee landowners, to lease MA-8 from them and control the property. See id. Although it is now contested, at that time it was agreed that MA-8 was trust land. Therefore, any lease of MA-8 had to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior through the BIA. See 25 U.S.C. § 415.
Eventually, Evans obtained approval for his proposed lease from 64% of the Indian allottee landowners with an interest in MA-8. Wapato Heritage, L.L.C. , 637 F.3d at 1035. On February 2, 1984, the Colville Agency, on behalf of the BIA, approved the lease of MA-8 to Evans. See id. ; ECF No. 90-6 at 23–24. Pursuant to federal regulations, the BIA consented to the lease on behalf of the remaining 36% of the trust interest. Wapato Heritage, L.L.C. , 637 F.3d at 1035.
This "Master Lease" granted use of MA-8 to Evans for a period of twenty-five years, beginning in 1984. The Master Lease defined Evans as the "Lessee" and the individual Indian landowners as "Lessor." Wapato Heritage, L.L.C. , 637 F.3d at 1040 (); see ECF No. 90-2 at 1. These individual landowners' names and addresses purportedly were listed in an Exhibit to the Master Lease.2 Id.
The Master Lease contained a renewal option, which would allow Evans to renew the lease for up to 25 years. ECF No. 90-2 at 3. To renew the Master Lease, Evans was required to give notice to the "Lessor" and the Secretary in writing one year prior to the expiration of the initial 25-year lease term.3 Id. Thus, Evans would have needed to give notice of renewal to the Lessor by 2008.
On January 30, 1985, Evans sent a letter to the Colville Agency, referencing the Master Lease. See ECF No. 90-6 at 25. The language of the letter indicates that Evans intended to exercise his option to renew the Master Lease. See id. The letter stated:
In accordance with paragraph three (3) of the subject lease dated February 2, 1984, you are notified by receipt of this letter that Mar-Lu, Ltd. [Evans's company] hereby exercises its option to renew the subject lease for a further term of twenty five (25) years to be effective at the expiration of the original twenty five (25) year term. This notice extends the total term for the subject lease to February 1, 2034.
Id. Although Evans stated an intent to renew the Master Lease, he did not notify any of the Indian Landowners in writing of his intent to renew, nor did he send any notice through certified mail, as required by the Master Lease. Wapato Heritage, L.L.C. , 637 F.3d at 1040.
The BIA never communicated with Evans to notify him about the status of the lease renewal, or to offer a formal opinion about whether the lease was effectively renewed. As Judge Whaley found in related litigation about the Master Lease and MA-8, "The issue [of the Master Lease's renewal] simply never arose, formally, because the BIA was never asked to make such an administrative decision until 2007." ECF No. 30 at 4 in Case No. 2:08-cv-177-RHW. However, the BIA approved and signed documents after receiving the letter from Evans, indicating that the Agency assumed that the lease had been renewed and thus would expire in 2034. See e.g. , ECF No. 90-4 at 10–31.
After obtaining the Master Lease, Evans began developing an RV park on MA-8, the Mill Bay RV Resort. "The original plan Evans envisioned included 750 RV sites that would occupy the entire parcel of MA-8 but [sic] changed the plan and decided to construct a golf course and limit the number of RV sites." ECF No. 1 at 5; ECF No. 90-6 at 42. Evans sold camping memberships to those interested in using the Mill Bay Resort for recreational purposes.
In 1989, "Evans submitted a plan to revise the RV Resort plan in order to provide members with ‘expanded memberships.’ " ECF No. 1 at 5; see also ECF No. 90-6 at 42. These expanded memberships allowed purchasers to use a designated RV space at Mill Bay Resort for recreational purposes, consistent with the "Expanded Membership Sale...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grondal v. United States
...U.S.C. § 2409a.17 A more thorough history was compiled by Judge Peterson in the 2020 order below. See Grondal v. Mill Bay Members Ass'n , 471 F. Supp. 3d 1095, 1100–10 (E.D. Wash. 2020).18 A small group did relocate.19 In other words, the land of the Columbia Reservation that was not allott......
-
United States v. Osage Wind, LLC, Case No. 14-CV-704-GKF-JFJ
...include laches, estoppel, and waiver. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 691 F.2d at 1084 (laches); Grondal v. Mill Bay Members Ass'n, Inc., 471 F. Supp. 3d 1095, 1128-29 (E.D. Wash. 2020), appeal filed, Grondal v. United States, No. 20-34694 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2020); Canadian St. Regis Band of M......
-
United States v. Osage Wind, LLC
...include laches, estoppel, and waiver. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 691 F.2d at 1084 (laches); Grondal v. Mill Bay Members Ass'n, Inc., 471 F. Supp. 3d 1095, 1128-29 (E.D. Wash. 2020), appeal filed, Grondal v. United States, No. 20-34694 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2020); Canadian St. Regis Band of M......