Preview:

No. 84-507 IN THE SUPREME COIJRT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985

MILBANK MUTUAL INSURANCE COLWANY , a corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vsMELVIN EAGLEMAN, JR. Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM:

District Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Roosevelt, The Honorable M. James Sorte, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Carol C. Johns, Nontana Legal Services, Wolf Point, Montana For Respondent : Cannon & Sheehy; Edmund F. Sheehy, Jr., Helena, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: Decided:

June 13, 1985 September 12, 1985

Filed:

Clerk

Mr.

J u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . The R o o s e v e l t County D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a default Company

judgment

in

favor

of

Milbank 1983.

Mutual

Insurance

(Milbank) on December 9 ,

Appellant,

Melvin Eagleman,

Jr.

(Eagleman), a p p e a l s . The i s s u e s a r e : 1. F7as E a g l e m a n ' s

W e reverse.

notice of

appeal

timely

f i l e d with

t h i s Court?
2.

Did

the

District

Court

have

subject

matter

jurisdiction? Eagleman

i s a n e n r o l l e d member o f

t h e F o r t Peck S i o u x

and A s s i n i b o i n e T r i b e s and r e s i d e s on t h e F o r t Peck R e s e r v a tion. Eagleman of took a 1981 Ford Thunderbird insured, without Lawrence the F.

permission Blackdog.

the

owner,

plaintiff's

Eagleman damaged t h e v e h i c l e w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r

b o u n d a r i e s o f t h e F o r t Peck R e s e r v a t i o n . Milbank paid

its

insured

$7,400

and

brought

a

civil

a c t i o n a g a i n s t Eagleman i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t s e e k i n g $7,400 i n damages. entered. I n A p r i l 1 9 8 3 , t h e Department o f , J u s t i c e , Motor V e h i c l e Division, notified Eagleman that his driver's l i c e n s e was On September Eagleman d i d n o t a p p e a r and a d e f a u l t judgment was

suspended f o r f a i l u r e t o s a t i s f y t h e judgment.

'11, 1 9 8 4 , Eagleman f i l e d a motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t
judgment on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t it was v o i d u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , M.R.Civ.P. The motion September 21, was deemed denied by operation of law on

1984.

O O c t o b e r 26, n

1984, t h e D i s t r i c t Court

g r a n t e d a motion
of

f o r an e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e f o r f i l i n g n o t i c e

a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t on a showing o f e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t .

Eagleman f i l e d n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on O c t o b e r 26, 1984.

Was Eagleman's notice of appeal timely filed with this Court? On September 11, 1984, Eagleman filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. Rule 59 (d), M.R.Civ.P. requires Since no

that a hearing on the motion be had within 10 days.

hearing was held within 10 days, Eagleman's motion was deemed denied on September 21, 1984. Eagleman filed notice of appeal on October 26, 1984, thirty-five days after his motion was deemed denied. contends the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Under Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P., of appeal may be extended. 496, 499-500, 565 P.2d the time to file a notice Milbank

In Zell v. Zell (1977), 172 Mont. 311, 313, we discussed excusable

neglect and the extension of time to file a notice of appeal. We believe that allowing a party to request such an extension of time before or after the expiration of the original time prescribed by Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P., is the better procedure and we adopt this view. This does not, however, give a party an unlimited amount of time to request an extension of time from the district court. Rule 5 provides: "Upon showing of excusable neglect, the district court may extend the time for filing the notice o f appeal by any party for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiratior o-- the origins 1 time '? =scribed 3 - Rule." this (Emphasis supplied.)
On October 26, 1984, Eagleman was granted an extension

of time for filing a excusable neglect.

notice of appeal upon a showing of

The notice of appeal was filed within the

30-day extension of time authorized by Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P. The appeal was timely filed.

Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t have s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n ? T h e r e i s no d i s p u t e t h a t Eagleman i s a n e n r o l l e d member

of t h e F o r t Peck S i o u x and A s s i n i b o i n e T r i b e s and t h a t t h e
accident occurred within t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of t h e F o r t Peck R e s e r v a t i o n . Subject matter jurisdiction over civil litigation in

Montana between I n d i a n s and n o n - I n d i a n s

a r i s i n g o u t of con-

d u c t on a n I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n i s g o v e r n e d by t h e t h r e e - p a r t

t e s t o f S t a t e e x r e l . I r o n B e a r v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 162
Mont. 335, 346, 512 P.2d 1292, 1299:

B e f o r e a d i s t r i c t c o u r t c a n assume j u r i s d i c t i o n i n any m a t t e r s u b m i t t e d t o i t , it must f i n d s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n by (1) w h e t h e r t h e f e d e r a l determining: t r e a t i e s and s t a t u t e s a p p l i c a b l e have preempted s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n ; ( 2 ) w h e t h e r t h e e x e r c i s e o f s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n would interfere with [ t r i b a l ] self-gove r n m e n t ; and ( 3 ) w h e t h e r t h e T r i b a l C o u r t is currently exercising jurisdiction o r has exercised j u r i s d i c t i o n i n such a manner a s t o p r e e m p t s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n .

...

The f i r s t and s e c o n d e l e m e n t s o f t h e t e s t w e r e a d o p t e d
f r o m W i l l i a m s v . Lee ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 358 U.S.

217.

The U n i t e d S t a t e s

Supreme C o u r t h a s i n t e r p r e t e d t h e s e two e l e m e n t s t o b e d i s junctive; if either

is

present,

the

state

lacks

subject

matter jurisdiction. C o n g r e s s h a s b r o a d power t o r e g u l a t e t r i b a l a f f a i r s u n d e r t h e I n d i a n Commerce This congresC l a u s e , A r t . 1, 58, c l . 3. s i o n a l a u t h o r i t y and t h e "semi-independ e n t p o s i t i o n " o f I n d i a n t r i b e s have g i v e n r i s e t o two i n d e p e n d e n t b u t r e l a t e d b a r r i e r s t o t h e a s s e r t i o n o f s t a t e regulatory authority over t r i b a l reservations and members. F i r s t , t h e e x e r c i s e o f such a u t h o r i t y may b e pre-empted by f e d e r a l law. Second, it may u n l a w f u l l y i n f r i n g e "on t h e r i g h t o f r e s e r v a t i o n I n d i a n s t o make t h e i r own l a w s and b e r u l e d by them." W i l l i a m s v. L e e , 358 U.S. 217, 220 ( 1 9 5 9 ) . The two b a r r i e r s a r e i n d e pendent because e i t h e r , s t a n d i n g a l o n e , can b e a s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s f o r h o l d i n g state law inapplicable to activity

undertaken on t r i b a l members.

the

reservation

or

by 136,

White Mountain Apache T r i b e v. B r a c k e r 142-43 (citations omitted).

( 1 9 8 0 ) , 448 U.S.

Has s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n

been preempted by f e d e r a l t r e a The 1851 T r e a t y o f F o r t Laramie J,and

ties o r relevant statutes?
reserved land for the

S i o u x and A s s i n i b o i n e T r i b e s .

r e s e r v e d by t r i b e s t h r o u g h . t r e a t i e s , a g r e e m e n t s r a t i f i e d by C o n g r e s s , o r e x e c u t i v e o r d e r s was o r i g i n a l l y beyond t h e r e a c h of s t a t e governmental a u t h o r i t y . However, s u b s e q u e n t f e d e r a l

law p e r m i t t e d s t a t e s t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n , w i t h t h e t r i b e ' s consent, country. the Fort over c i v i l causes of Montana Peck action arising within Indian over

has not obtained c i v i l and Assiniboine Rights

jurisdiction under 1968.

Sioux or the

Tribes of

either See
28

Public U.S.C. Bear:

Law 280

Download 2986e264-65fd-48cd-830f-3f2483306ef0.pdf

Montana Law