Decision endorses tribal courts - Federal judges uphold tribe's ruling against bank
A decision from the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on a South Dakota case is a ringing endorsement for tribal courts.
"I'm hearing from folks in New York, Minnesota, New Mexico. This is a decision people are paying attention to," says Patrice Kunesh an assistant law professor and Indian law scholar at the University of South Dakota School of Law.
The court ruled June 26 that tribal courts can litigate issues involving Indians and non-Indians who have entered into a "consensual business relationship."
"As a natural corollary, the tribal court system - the institution best qualified to interpret and apply tribal law -- also has jurisdiction to entertain tribal law disputes arising out of those activities," the appeals court ruling says.
The appeals court ruling might set precedent that tribal courts can use to try disputes in Indian Country rising from credit card solicitations and product liability claims, Kunesh says.
The case, Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co., was brought by Cheyenne River Sioux tribal members Ronnie and Lila Long against Plains Commerce Bank, formerly the Bank of Hoven.
Tom Van Norman, a lawyer for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe who helped argue the case, says the bank formerly had loaned money to the Long family ranching venture through Long's non-Indian father.
The bank changed the loan agreement in 1996 after he died because the remaining members of the ranching company were members of the tribe, Van Norman said. Bank officials told the surviving Longs the bank might have jurisdictional problems if it ever had to foreclose on their property on the reservation.
Because they did not receive the full amount of their anticipated loan, the Longs were unable to purchase hay or buy fuel to move existing stocks of hay, and they lost 500 cattle and horses during the severe winter of 1996-97, according to Van Norman.
The Longs sued the bank in tribal court claiming the foreclosure issue was discriminatory.
The case went to a jury trial, and the Longs were granted an $875,000 settlement against the bank. The verdict was upheld in the tribe's Court of Appeals.
The bank sought to overturn the verdict in federal court, claiming the bank was denied due process and that any discrimination claim had to be heard in federal court.
But Kunesh says the federal Appeals Court ruling upholding the tribal court decision "firmly puts tribal courts in the spectrum of being very capable, competent courts, fully fair and impartial."
Van Norman says "our tribal government works hard to ensure fairness in its court system, and this case sends a strong message upholding our tribal courts."
Equally important, Kunesh says, from the perspective of commercial transactions is that "the bank, although it said it didn't, should have had the expectation it was governed by tribal law. That solidly puts economic development into the realm of tribal courts' jurisdiction."
Van Norman says "this case sends a strong message that tribal courts are for these procedures. Litigants who don't use them or who use part of them and lose shouldn't be able to hop into another court and delay justice."
July 08, 2007
By Peter Harriman 575-3615 or Peter Harriman
Argus Leader Media - News
Lead from 2 beads Correspondent Teresa Anahuy
Contents
July 2007 Reports
Last updated on July 10, 2007