Neff v. Port Susan Camping Club, (2007)

• Decision Date: 10 December 2007
• Docket Number: TUL-CV-GC-2005-0368,TUL-CV-GC-2005-0390
• Parties: PAUL AND JOAN NEFF, APPELLANTS, v. PORT SUSAN CAMPING CLUB, APPELLEE.
• Court: Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals

PAUL AND JOAN NEFF, APPELLANTS, v. PORT SUSAN CAMPING CLUB, APPELLEE.

No. TUL-CV-GC-2005-0368, TUL-CV-GC-2005-0390

Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals Tulalip Indian Reservation Tulalip, Washington

December 10, 2007

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

SYLLABUS^*fn1

Following remand of its original order, trial court issued supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, ruling that a private association had followed proper procedures in terminating a membership, and that the record contained substantive evidence supporting the association's decision.Court of Appeals holds that trial court's reference to the record as a whole, without citation to specific evidence in the record, does not provide a basis for the Court of Appeals to affirm the trial court.Matter remanded for entry of findings citing specific evidence in the record for support.

SYLLABUS^[1]

Following remand of its original order, trial court issued supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, ruling that a private association had followed proper procedures in terminating a membership, and that the record contained substantive evidence supporting the association's decision.Court of Appeals holds that trial court's reference to the record as a whole, without citation to specific evidence in the record, does not provide a basis for the Court of Appeals to affirm the trial court.Matter remanded for entry of findings citing specific evidence in the record for support.

Appearances: Cory D. Rein for Appellants; Larry M. Trivet for Appellee.

Before: Jane Smith, Chief Justice; Robert Anderson, Justice Douglas Nash, Justice.

OPINION

ANDERSON, J.

This is the second appeal in this case.^[2] The underlying facts are set forth in an Opinion and Order dated November 16, 2006(Neff I).There were two issues before the court in the prior appeal."First, was the September 8, 2005 verbal agreement a legally binding contract that would govern the terms of Mr. Neff's continued membership in Port Susan?Second, if not, was Port Susan's action terminating Mr. Neff's membership valid?Neff I, Opinion and Orderat 3.We answered the first question in the negative and remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of the "Neffs' challenge to the September termination of Mr. Neff's membership[.]"Id. At 7.We applied state law in making our determination since tribal Ordinance 72 grants the tribal court jurisdiction to resolve disputes involving Port Susan and its members and incorporates state law "to the extent not inconsistent with other tribal law provisions."Ord. 72, § 2.

On remand, the trial court issued "Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" on March 27, 2007.The trial court concluded that Port Susan had followed the proper procedure for termination of Mr. Neff's membership and referenced material in the record sufficient to support its conclusion in finding 4.We agree that Port Susan followed the proper procedures.It provided notice as required by the bylaws, identified the sections of the bylaws allegedly violated and held a hearing at which Mr. Neff was permitted to present evidence.The fact that Mr. Neff was not permitted to review some of the underlying documents in advance of the hearing does not make the process defective.There is no requirement for the exchange of documents in the bylaws and Mr. Neff was in fact given a chance to review the documents on the day of the hearing.Appellant Neff's Opening Briefat 12.Mr. Neff was represented by counsel and permitted to argue his case.Courts will not add procedural requirements to the bylaws of social organizations.Nor will we disturb the trial court's determination that the hearing was fair.Cf., Garvey v. Seattle Tennis Club,808 P.2d 1155, 1157-58(Wash.App.1991).

In finding 8, the trial court found that the "trial record contains substantive evidence supporting Port Susan's decision to terminate Mr. Neff's membership in the Club."That finding, however, does not point to any specific evidence in the record.A court of appeals cannot affirm a factual finding such as this without trial court findings that point to supporting evidence in the record.

[Washington courts] review a trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in two steps.First we review...