Northern Shores Loan Fund, Inc. v. Harbor Wear of Boyne, Inc., (2012)

• Decision Date: 06 November 2012
• Docket Number: A-021-0312
• Parties: NORTHERN SHORES LOAN FUND, INC., APPELLANT, v. HARBOR WEAR OF BOYNE, INC., APPELLEE.
• Court: Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians App. Court

NORTHERN SHORES LOAN FUND, INC., APPELLANT, v. HARBOR WEAR OF BOYNE, INC., APPELLEE.

No. A-021-0312

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Appellate Court

November 6, 2012

Lisa McComb, Executive Director, Northern Shores Loan Fund, Inc.

Gerald L. Field, President, Harbor Wear of Boyne, Inc.

DECISION AND ORDER

WENONA SINGEL, CHIEF APPELLATE JUSTICE

Background

Northern Shores Loan Fund, Inc.(the Loan Fund) appeals of an Order of the Tribal Court declining to enter a default judgment and dismissing the Loan Fund's complaint and request for a money judgment.The Loan Fund had filed a complaint against the DefendantAppelleeHarbor Wear of Boyne, Inc.(Harbor Wear) requesting a money judgment for a loan made to Harbor Wear which it alleged was in default.After holding a trial and receiving testimony and documentary evidence from the Executive Director for the Loan Fund, Judge Jenny Kronk on behalf of the Tribal Court issued an Order stating that the requirements for a default judgment had not been satisfied and dismissing the case.We hold that the Tribal Court did not make the necessary and essential factual findings to support its dismissal or to support its conclusion that the default judgment rule's requirements were not met.Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

Issue Presented on Appeal

The issues presented on appeal include the following:

1.Was the Tribal Court's dismissal of the Loan Fund's complaint appropriate?

2.Was the Loan Fund entitled to a default judgment under Rule XXIV of the LTBB Rules of Civil Procedure?

Summary of the Facts

The essential facts of this case cannot be ascertained by the Appellate Court because the Tribal Court failed to make factual findings after the trial it held on January 30, 2012.Rule XXII of the LTBB Rules of Civil Procedure plainly require that the Tribal Court"issue a written opinion including findings of fact, conclusions of law, order and judgment" at the conclusion of a trial.

The Tribal Court's Order dated February 7, 2012 does not include any such findings of fact.Instead, it simply lists the exhibits that were submitted at trial, and it provides a bullet point recitation of points made by the Loan Fund's Executive Director during her testimony.This summary is not sufficient as "findings of fact."Without factual findings made by the Tribal Court, it is nearly impossible for the Appellate Court to determine whether the ultimate facts support the Tribal Court's disposition of the case.The Appellate Court must rely on the Tribal Court's deliberate determination of whether the relevant facts are supported by authentic and reliable evidence and credible witness testimony.The Appellate Court cannot make this determination on its own because it is constrained by procedural limitations that are structured to allow fact finding solely at the trial level.See, e.g., Rule 7.501(A) of the LTBB Appellate Procedures (defining the standard of review for factual findings on appeal) and Rules XIV, XVIII and XIX of the LTBB Rules of Civil Procedure(providing the rules for discovery, trial procedures and evidence for proceedings before the Tribal Court).

Furthermore it is not sufficient for the Tribal Court to simply recite the major points made by witnesses in their testimony at trial or to simply recite the names of documents submitted as exhibits.The role of the Tribal Court judge sitting without a jury is to hear the evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, and assign weight to the various pieces of evidence before it.In this case, the Tribal Court judge did not exercise this critical function.In its statement of the Tribal Court's conclusions of law, the Tribal Court did state that the testimony of the Loan Fund's Executive Director was "unreliable."It is unclear whether this broad generalization is meant to discredit all or merely a portion of the Executive Director's testimony.

Ordinarily in a case involving a complaint filed by a creditor against a debtor requesting a money judgment on an allegedly defaulted loan, the Tribal Court's order disposing of the case should include the following kinds of factual findings:

* The identities of the parties

* Specific facts that relate to whether the Tribal Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties;

* Specific facts establishing whether there was a transaction that established a debtor-creditor relationship

* Specific facts establishing whether there was an express or implied agreement regarding the amount due

* Specific facts establishing whether the debtor made an express or implied promise to repay the amount due

* Specific facts establishing the actual amount due

* Any other material facts that are relevant to the law and procedural rules that the Tribal Court applies

Beyond specifying the identities of the parties, the Tribal Court's Order neglected to include factual findings for any of the essential facts described above.Given this omission, the Appellate Court is not able to reliably determine whether the Tribal Court correctly applied law to the facts in this case.

Discussion

Our Appellate Procedures provide that factual findings are sustained unless clearly erroneous, and conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.LTBB Appellate Procedure Rule 7.501(A) and (E).As explained above, the Tribal Court Order did not include a set of factual findings, so the Appellate Court is unable to determine whether the Tribal Court correctly applied to the law to the essential facts.The Appellate Court is therefore unable to determine whether the Tribal Court's dismissal of the Appellant's complaint was appropriate, and it is unable to determine whether the Loan Fund was entitled to a default judgment under Rule XXIV of the LTBB Rules of Civil Procedure.

In the absence of factual findings for review, the Appellate Court can describe the rules or laws applied by the Tribal Court and identify the facts that must be ascertained by the Tribal Court for these sources of law to be applied.Rule XXIV of the LTBBB Rules of Civil Procedure, which the Tribal Court applied, provides the following:

Section 2.Judgment by Default.

Judgment by default may be entered by the clerk if a party's claim against the opposing party is for a sum of money which is or can by computation be made certain and if the opposing party has been personally served within the exterior boundaries of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Reservation.Otherwise, judgment by default can be entered only by the court upon receipt...