Southern Puget Sound Intertribal Housing Authority v. Johnson, (1988)

• Court: Shoalwater Bay Tribal Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 24 September 1988
• Docket Number: SHO-CIV 6/80-434
• Citation: Southern Puget Sound Intertribal Housing Authority v. Johnson (Shoalwater Bay Tribal Ct. of App. 1988)
• Parties: SOUTHERN PUGET SOUND INTERTRIBAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. CARL JOHNSON, JR.

SOUTHERN PUGET SOUND INTERTRIBAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. CARL JOHNSON, JR.

No. SHO-CIV 6/80-434

Shoalwater Bay Appellate Court Shoalwater Bay Reservation Tokeland, Washington

September 24, 1988

Appearances: Jeffry B. Ranes, Olson and Ranes, Montesano Washington, for the appellant Carl Johnson, Jr. Darrel B Addington and Shawn Ann Flood, Kane, Vandeberg, Hartinger and Walker, Tacoma, Washington, for the Appellee Southern Puget Sound Intertribal Housing Authority.

SUMMARY

In a breach of contract action which resulted in a claim that one party was unlawfully detaining the premises, the trial court applied the parol evidence rule and excluded the testimony of witnesses intended to establish the circumstances and intentions of the parties at the time of signing both the agreement at issue, and similar contractual agreements between the parties.

Reversing the trial court's order, the Appellate Court held that the parol evidence rule does not apply to proceedings in tribal court. The Court reasoned that it is fundamental to tribal culture that parties to a conflict have their say without legal doctrines unfairly limiting such right. Further, service was proper in that tribal law does not provide that a summons must be signed by the court clerk in order to be valid.

FULL TEXT

Before Shoalwater Bay Appellate Court; Chief Justice Elbridge Coochise, Justice Emma Dulik and Justice Rosemary J. Irvin.

APPELLATE DECISION AND ORDER

NATURE OF ACTION:

The appellant was sued by the appellee for unlawful tenancy under a Mutual Help and Occupancy Agreement executed between the parties and dated June 12, 1985.

TRIAL COURT:

The matter was tried pro se by both parties on June 30, 1988 before Judge Frank S; LaFountaine. Judge LaFountaine found that the appellant had materially breached his contract with the appellee and was unlawfully detaining the premises. A writ of restitution to the appellee was issued.

COURT OF APPEALS:

On a Motion for a Continuance to hear the Appeal, made by the appellant, on August 23, 1988, the Appellate Court continued the matter, ordering that the matter would be determined on the briefs which the parties would submit and on the record unless a hearing appeared necessary. On September 24, 1988 the Appellate Court rendered its opinion based on the briefs submitted by the parties and on the record. The Court unanimously reversed the trial court order and remanded the matter for a new trial, with instructions.

I.

The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply to proceedings in Shoalwater Bay Tribal Court

During the course of the trial, Judge LaFountaine refused to hear the testimony of twelve witnesses whom the defendant proffered to establish the circumstances and intentions of the parties at the time of signing the Mutual Help and Occupancy Agreement. The witnesses were offered to establish circumstances and intentions surrounding the execution of similar contractual agreements with the appellee. The Court excluded the testimony of all witnesses except the defendants, basing its decision on the Parol Evidence Rule.

Paramount to other concerns in the conducting of any trial in tribal court is the concern that any party to a proceeding be given a hearing and a fair hearing. Traditionally, anyone who had something to say regarding a matter in controversy would have the opportunity to have their say prior to a decision being rendered by the tribal elders. It is fundamental to tribal culture that parties to a conflict be allowed to have their say without legal doctrines being unfairly imposed to limit this right. Tribal Courts do not exist to enforce the letter of the law as much as they do to serve tribal people with a forum for a fair hearing and a just adjudication, one in which they may run their own case, within reasonable limits, with or without an attorney.

The Parol Evidence Rule is not, and never has been a rule of the Shoalwater Bay Tribe. The Parol Evidence Rule is a rule of substantive law of the State of Washington. The Tribal Court erred in applying the Rule and applying it as a rule of evidence to exclude witnesses.

The Parol Evidence Rule, as traditionally stated in Washington, provides:

[P]arol or extrinsic evidence is not admissible to add to, subtract from, vary, or contradict written instruments which are...