Gustafson v. Poitra
Decision Date | 23 January 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 20190230,20190230 |
Citation | 937 N.W.2d 524 |
Parties | Darrel GUSTAFSON, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Linus POITRA, Raymond Poitra, Defendants and Appellants and any and all others in possession of the Property described in the Complaint, Defendants |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
David J. Smith and Tyler J. Malm, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; (on brief).
William J. Delmore, Bismarck, ND, for defendants and appellants Linus Poitra and Raymond Poitra; (on brief).
[¶1] Linus and Raymond Poitra appeal the district court judgment of eviction. The Poitras argue the district court erred by exercising jurisdiction over this matter, and by sending a North Dakota law enforcement officer onto the reservation to evict tribal members from property within the Turtle Mountain Reservation. We affirm.
[¶2] The parties have been before this Court multiple times. First, was a foreclosure action on two parcels of property. Gustafson v. Poitra , 2008 ND 159, 755 N.W.2d 479. Tribal jurisdiction was raised at the district court, but not on appeal. Id. n.1. This Court affirmed the district court and concluded Raymond Poitra waived his statute of limitations defense, he failed to raise a material fact that his prior bankruptcy proceedings released the mortgage on his real property, he received due process when the district court granted Gustafson summary judgment, and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the post-judgment motion. Id. at ¶ 1.
[¶3] In the second case, Gustafson sued in district court claiming Leon Poitra’s estate owed him money for maintenance and repairs he made on a building located in part on his land and in part on Leon Poitra’s land. Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra , 2011 ND 150, ¶ 2, 800 N.W.2d 842. The 2011 case centered on a 1997 lease between Gustafson and Leon and Linus Poitra. This Court vacated the default judgment in favor of Gustafson because the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the lease. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 14.
[¶4] The third case was Gustafson v. Poitra , 2018 ND 202, 916 N.W.2d 804. In that case, Gustafson sued Raymond and Linus Poitra alleging he was a non-Indian fee owner of two parcels located in Rolette County within the exterior boundaries of the Turtle Mountain Reservation. Id. at ¶ 2. Gustafson claimed ownership by virtue of a 2007 foreclosure judgment and a 2008 sheriff’s deed after the Poitras placed a lessor’s lien on the properties. Id. The district court quieted title in the two parcels of land to Gustafson and ordered the Poitras pay damages. The Poitras argued the district court erred in deciding the Turtle Mountain tribal court did not have jurisdiction over the action. Id. at ¶ 1. This Court affirmed, and concluded neither of the two Montana exceptions applied. Id. at ¶¶ 17, 19.
[¶5] The current case began when Gustafson sued to evict the Poitras and require that they remove their personal property from property that was subject of the 2018 quiet title action. The district court determined it had subject matter jurisdiction and granted the eviction. The Poitras contend this action is a continuance of the prior foreclosure, and they are not challenging the foreclosure or the quiet title. They argue the eviction action should have been brought in tribal court, and sending a North Dakota law enforcement officer onto the reservation to evict tribal members is not a continuance of the prior foreclosure action, but is a clear violation of the United States Supreme Court holding in Montana v. United States , 450 U.S. 544, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 67 L.Ed.2d 493 (1981).
[¶6] "In Fredericks v. Fredericks , 2016 ND 234, ¶ 6, 888 N.W.2d 177 (citations omitted), we described standards for analyzing subject matter jurisdiction:
"
Poitra , 2018 ND 202, ¶ 6, 916 N.W.2d 804.
[¶7] Here, the dispute is whether the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate an action for eviction regarding the property, which is non-Indian fee land located within the Turtle Mountain Reservation. The dispute is not factual. In the 2018 case we accepted that: 1) Gustafson is a non-Indian; 2) the property at issue is owned by Gustafson in fee; and 3) the property at issue is within the exterior boundaries of the Turtle Mountain Reservation. Therefore, the applicable standard of review is de novo. Poitra , 2018 ND 202, ¶ 4, 916 N.W.2d 804.
[¶8] The Poitras argue the district court did not have jurisdiction over an eviction regarding the non-Indian fee land located within the Turtle Mountain Reservation.
[¶9] "Subject matter jurisdiction is a court’s power to hear and decide the general subject involved in the action." Poitra , 2018 ND 202, ¶ 9, 916 N.W.2d 804 (citing Albrecht v. Metro Area Ambulance , 1998 ND 132, ¶ 10, 580 N.W.2d 583 ). In Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., Inc. , 554 U.S. 316, 320, 327-30, 128 S.Ct. 2709, 171 L.Ed.2d 457 (2008), a tribal court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a discrimination claim against a non-Indian bank concerning the non-Indian bank’s sale of its fee land. In Plains Commerce Bank , the Supreme Court described the underlying principles and framework for assessing tribal court jurisdiction under the Montana exceptions:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hare v. Mack
... ... recognized that findings of jurisdictional fact are reviewed ... for clear error. See, e.g. , Gustafson v ... Poitra , 937 N.W.2d 524, 526 (N.D. 2020); State v ... One Love Ministries , 142 Haw. 197, 206, 416 P.3d 918, ... 927 (Ct ... ...
- Chisholm v. State