Smith v. James
2 Am. Tribal Law 319 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a dispute governed by village customary law where the custom is not established by prior case law, a trial court must first hold a hearing to ascertain the applicable customary law before holding a fact-finding trial on the merits.
Facts:
- Appellant Ruth Smith and Appellees Joyce James, Darlene Ahownewa, and Lorna Quamahongnewa are members of the same family from the Hopi Village of Hotevilla, disputing rights to a tract of farmland.
- Smith left the Hopi reservation in 1938, married a non-Hopi, and now resides on the Yavapai-Apache Reservation.
- Smith asserts that her father gave her the property in an oral 'will' in 1954.
- Appellees, who remained on the reservation, claim rights to the land through their mother pursuant to Hopi tradition, alleging Smith was 'disowned' and lost her inheritance rights for leaving the reservation and failing to participate in ceremonies.
- The dispute escalated in 1993 and 1994 when Smith and her son placed metal fencing stakes and planted fruit trees on the property, which Appellees considered an interference with their use.
- Appellees requested Smith remove the stakes, and in response, Smith's counsel threatened legal action if they 'persisted in harassing' her.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 26, 1994, Appellees (James et al.) filed a Petition for a Preliminary Injunction in the Hopi Tribal Court (trial court) against Appellant (Smith).
- After the Village of Hotevilla deferred jurisdiction, Appellees amended their petition to include a Quiet Title action.
- Smith filed an answer and a counterclaim, also requesting to quiet title.
- On June 25, 1995, the trial court held a trial where both parties presented factual evidence.
- On March 27, 1997, the trial court held a separate hearing in the Village of Hotevilla to take testimony concerning relevant village custom and tradition.
- On April 17, 1998, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Appellees (then Petitioners).
- On May 6, 1998, Smith (then Respondent) filed a Notice of Appeal to the Hopi Appellate Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a dispute governed by village customary law, does a trial court commit a reversible procedural error by holding a fact-finding trial before holding a separate hearing to ascertain the applicable customary law?
Opinions:
Majority - Sekaquaptewa, C.J. (implied)
Yes. A trial court commits a reversible procedural error by holding a fact-finding trial before it ascertains the applicable customary law. The trial court held the fact-finding trial in June 1995 but did not hold the hearing to determine the customary law of Hotevilla until nearly two years later in March 1997. This procedure is inherently unfair because, without an established legal standard, parties are unable to construct coherent arguments or select the specific evidence that will support their case, forcing them to speculate as to what the law is. Furthermore, the procedure for the custom-finding hearing was itself flawed because the village was not involved in selecting witnesses and the parties were not permitted to submit follow-up questions. Therefore, the case must be remanded for a new hearing to find the law, followed by a new trial to apply the facts to that law.
Concurring - Lomayesva, J.
Yes. The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's decision to vacate the trial court's order and remand the case due to the procedural errors in determining and applying customary law. However, the author writes separately to express concern over the 'undefined nature' of the court's discretion in accepting a late-filed brief. The author suggests that the appellant's pro per status and the potential clash between Western legal procedures and Hopi sensibilities may justify relaxing rigid rules, but warns that 'discretion unbound invites uncertainty and disturbs one’s reliance upon established law.'
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical procedural framework for tribal courts adjudicating disputes based on unwritten customary law. It bifurcates the legal process, requiring a formal determination of the 'law' (custom) before hearing the 'facts,' a significant step to ensure procedural fairness. This protects litigants from having to guess the legal standard they must meet and provides a clear template for future cases. The ruling reinforces the unique role of tribal courts in integrating traditional, non-adversarial methods of law-finding into a formal judicial structure, thereby strengthening the legitimacy of customary law within the court system.
