Southern Puget Sound Inter-Tribal Housing Authority v. Willoughby, (2010)

• Decision Date: 20 April 2010
• Docket Number: SHO-CIV-12/09-384
• Parties: SOUTHERN PUGET SOUND INTER-TRIBAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, v. RACHEL WILLOUGHBY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
• Court: Shoalwater Bay Tribal Court of Appeals

SOUTHERN PUGET SOUND INTER-TRIBAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, v. RACHEL WILLOUGHBY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

No. SHO-CIV-12/09-384

Shoalwater Bay Tribal Court of Appeals Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation Tokeland, Washington

April 20, 2010

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

SYLLABUS^*fn1

Trial court issued order affirming the right of a landlord to prohibit dogs from being kept on landlord's premises and directing the parties to attempt settlement.Court of Appeals holds that order being appealed is not final and appellant failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for an interlocutory appeal by permission.Request for review and immediate relief denied, appeal dismissed, and matter remanded for entry of a final order.

SYLLABUS^[1]

Trial court issued order affirming the right of a landlord to prohibit dogs from being kept on landlord's premises and directing the parties to attempt settlement.Court of Appeals holds that order being appealed is not final and appellant failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for an interlocutory appeal by permission.Request for review and immediate relief denied, appeal dismissed, and matter remanded for entry of a final order.

OPINION

COLEGROVE, C.J.

This matter comes before the Shoalwater Bay Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to the Notice of Appeal filed by appellantRachel Willoughby on January 14, 2010.^[2] Under the Shoalwater Bay Tribal Code, the Court of Appeals may take any action as the merits of the case and the interest of justice may require.SBTC 19.09.010.The Chief Judge decides whether to accept an appeal.SBTC 19.05.030.The code requires the Court of Appeals to give written notice of its decision whether to accept the appeal within 45 days, but does not specify what event triggers the 45-day deadline.SBTC 19.05.030.This Order is entered within 45 days of receipt of the file by the Chief Judge.

Appellant seeks to appeal the January 21, 2010 Judgment and Order of the Shoalwater Bay Tribal Court in which the Tribal Court affirmed the right of appellee Southern Puget Sound Inter-Tribal Housing Authority to prohibit appellant from having dogs on the premises appellant leases from appellee.^[3] Although appellant's lease unequivocally prohibits appellant from having any dogs on the premises unless agreed to by appellee, the Notice of Appeal requests immediate relief in the form of allowing appellant to keep certain dogs on the premises.

Based on statements made by the Housing Authority's representative at the hearing on the merits that the Housing Authority might allow some dogs on the premises, the Order directs appellant to meet with the Housing Authority to discuss which dogs might be allowed.The Order states that the Housing Authority retains the authority to decide how many, if any, dogs may reside on the premises and expressly states that the Housing Authority's decision shall be accepted in a "final order."Thus, the Trial Court's January 21, 2010 Judgment and Order is not a final order as it relates to the exclusion of dogs from the premises.The trial judge also stated at the January 13, 2010 hearing on the merits that she was continuing the matter for thirty (30) days, and then reiterated in her January 21 written order that the "eviction" would be "stayed" for thirty days and reheard on February 10, 2010, further establishing that a final order has yet to be issued in this case.

Because this Court holds that no final order has been issued relating to the keeping of dogs on the premises, the Court will treat the Notice of Appeal as an appeal from an order not yet final.While the Shoalwater Bay Appellate Code does provide for "Appeal from Orders Not Yet Final,"(also described as "appeal by permission")SBTC 19.03.020, SBTC 19.05.030, an appeal by permission is only to be accepted for review if the trial court"committed an obvious error which (a) would render further proceedings useless; or (b) substantially limits the freedom or [sic]a party to act."SBTC 19.03.020.This appeal does not meet either criteria.While the trial judge does seem to have committed certain technical errors in procedure and terminology which may have caused some confusion for appellant^[4] , these errors are not the type that would render further proceedings useless or substantially limit the freedom of appellant.Nor do any of these errors transform an order that on its face is clearly not final to an order that is final for purposes of appeal.

An appeal from an order not yet final, or appeal by permission is also referred to as an interlocutory appeal.A recent decision from the Chehalis Tribal Court of Appeals interpreting nearly identical language in the Chehalis Tribal Code states

The burden on a party seeking an interlocutory appeal ... is a heavy one.First, as a general matter, all appellate courts disapprove of interlocutory and piecemeal appeals for valid policy reasons.The gold standard is to allow one appeal after all the trial court proceedings are at an end and there is a final judgment to review.Judicial economy, fairness to the parties and the court, and numerous other reasonable justifications argue for this standard.See, e.g., ...