Smith v. Landrum

334 Mich.App. 511

965 N.W.2d 253

Beth Eva SMITH and John G. Smith, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.Stephen E. LANDRUM and Maureen E. Landrum, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 347402

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted October 6, 2020, at Grand Rapids.

October 29, 2020, 9:20 a.m.

Bridges and Bridges, Negaunee (by Caroline Bridges ) for plaintiffs.

F. Gregory Murphy, Marquette, for defendants.

Before: Murray, C.J., and Cavanagh and Cameron, JJ.

Murray, C.J.

The question presented in this quiet-title action is whether a state court has subject-matter jurisdiction to decide an easement dispute in favor of a non-Indian on land owned by a non-Indian when the land is located on an Indian reservation. The trial court concluded that it did not and therefore entered a final order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).¹ For the reasons outlined below, we hold that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the easement dispute. We therefore reverse the order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition and remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

The material facts relating to the jurisdictional issue are undisputed. The land at issue is owned by defendant, who is not an Indian. Plaintiffs, who seek a prescriptive easement over a part of defendant's land, are also not Indians. The land, however, is located within the L'Anse Reservation, but it is not held in trust for the tribe or any tribal member (or any Indian, for that matter).²

Although the land is not currently owned by an Indian, it was previously owned by Mark Perrault, who was a member of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. Specifically, the record shows that two "Deeds to Restricted Indian Land" were issued by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, conveying the property at issue to "[t]he United States of America in trust for Mark H. Perrault, Chippewa Indian." The deeds state that "[t]his conveyance is made pursuant to the provisions of the Act of June 18, 1934 ( [ 25 USC 461 et seq. , now 25 USC 5101 ], 48 Stat., 984.)," and that the deeds were recorded in the "Bureau of Indian Affairs ..., Inherited Indian Land Deed Book."

After Perrault died, a Department of the Interior administrative law judge held a proceeding "to determine the heirs, to determine the validity of the Last Will and Testament, and to settle the estate" of Perrault, which included "trust or restricted property" located on the L'Anse Reservation.³ As a result of the hearing, the property passed to Perrault's wife, Noreen, with the order stating that Noreen's share "will pass to her in unrestricted or non-trust status by virtue of the fact that she is non-Indian, and her share shall become subject to the jurisdiction of the state where the land is located. Estate of Dana A. Knight , 9 IBIA 82, 88 I.D. 987 (1981); Bailess v. Paukune , [344 U.S. 171, 73 S. Ct. 198, 97 L. Ed. 197] (1952) ; Levindale Lead [& Zinc Mining Co. ] v. Coleman , [241 U.S. 432, 36 S. Ct. 644, 60 L. Ed. 1080] (1916)." Noreen subsequently conveyed the property to Perrault's son and three daughters, all of whom are Indians, by warranty deed dated January 23, 2002, and she registered the deed with the Baraga County Register of Deeds. These four owners then conveyed the property to defendant (again, a non-Indian) by warranty deed dated August 3, 2012, and that deed was also registered with the county register of deeds.

After the complaint was filed and served, defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4), arguing that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because defendant's property is located within the borders of the reservation and a previous owner in the chain of title, Perrault, was a tribal member. Relying on the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Tribal Code, §§ 1.102 and 1.103, defendant argued that a state court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction to impose a prescriptive easement over land located within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation, even when the land owner and parties are non-Indians. Defendant maintained that under 28 USC 1360,⁴ the case must be adjudicated in federal court if the tribal court does not take jurisdiction.

For their part, plaintiffs argued that the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction because the land is owned in fee simple by defendant and is not held in trust by the United States government for an Indian person. Plaintiffs contended that defendant's argument rested on the erroneous assertion that defendant's land is held in federal trust for an Indian, when, in fact, the parcel was transferred out of trust through the September 14, 2001 order and has never been transferred back into trust.

After holding a hearing on defendant's motion, the trial court subsequently issued a written opinion and order granting the motion. The trial court expressed concern for creating a " ‘checkerboard’ jurisdiction causing confusion, inconsistencies and potentially disruptive land use problems" and ultimately opined that because the land was located within the reservation, either that tribe's tribal court, or a federal district court, had jurisdiction over the dispute, and depending on where the case was refiled, that other court should decide whether it had jurisdiction:

Indian tribes are sovereign nations with the inherent authority to regulate both their members and their territories. Our Michigan Court of Appeals, in the unpublished case of State Treasurer v. Duty , [2016 WL 155793, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued January 12, 2016 (Docket No. 323854), p 2] quoted the United States Supreme Court:

"Generally speaking, primary jurisdiction over land that is Indian country rests with the Federal Government, and the Indian tribe inhabiting it, and not with the States." Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov't , 522 U.S. 520, 527 n. 1, 118 S. Ct. 948, 140 L. Ed. 2d 30 (1998).

The Tribal Code of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community conforms to the above set forth statement. Section 1.102 of the code states:

"The territorial jurisdiction of the Tribal Court shall encompass all areas within the exterior boundaries of the L'Anse Indian Reservation, Michigan, as well as all areas within the exterior boundaries of any other lands or waters which now or hereafter shall be held in Trust by the United States of America for the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community or any of its members.

"Further, and for the purpose of enforcement of approved tribal hunting, trapping, gathering, farming, and fishing regulations enacted to regulate treaty protected off-reservation hunting, trapping, gathering, farming, and fishing activities, such territorial jurisdiction shall extend to all areas where such treaty rights shall exist."

It is to be noted that the Tribal Code says "all" areas within the exterior boundaries of the L'Anse Indian Reservation without limitation. All areas within the exterior boundaries of the L'Anse Indian Reservation would include not only land owned by the tribe, itself, but also land owned both by tribal member and nonmembers alike.

As a practical matter, Sec 1.102 of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Tribal Code makes sense. A system where state courts have jurisdiction over fee lands owned by non-tribal members, and tribal and/or federal courts have jurisdiction over all remaining lands would, within an Indian reservation, create "checkerboard" jurisdiction causing confusion, inconsistencies and potentially disruptive land use problems.

The issue presented in this case is not whether the tribal court has jurisdiction over non-tribal members based upon the nonmember[’]s conduct, but instead, the issue is whether the tribe has jurisdiction to decide issues concerning Indian country land located within the L'Anse Indian Reservation. Our Court of Appeals in the unpublished case of Joseph K. Lumsden Bahweting Public School Academy v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians , [2004 WL 2387619, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued October 26, 2004 (Docket No. 252293) ], questioned whether a state court has jurisdiction to entertain the issue of whether a tribal court would have subject matter jurisdiction.

* * *

This Court believes, without deciding, that the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Tribal Court could exercise jurisdiction over the matter in dispute in this lawsuit; and thus, this Court is not a proper forum to decide the jurisdiction of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Tribal Court and/or the federal court in the setting of his lawsuit; and therefore, summary disposition is hereby GRANTED pursuant to the provisions of [MCR] 2.116(C)(4).

This appeal ensued.

II. ANALYSIS

The question whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a particular claim is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. Jamil v. Jahan , 280 Mich. App. 92, 99-100, 760 N.W.2d 266 (2008). "The burden is on the plaintiff to establish jurisdiction." Universal Am-Can Ltd. v. Attorney General , 197 Mich. App. 34, 37, 494 N.W.2d 787 (1992).

"Subject[-]matter jurisdiction in particular is defined as the court's ability to exercise judicial power over that class of cases; not the particular case before it, but rather the abstract power to try a case of the kind or character of the one pending." Campbell v. St. John Hosp. , 434 Mich. 608, 613-614, 455 N.W.2d 695 (1990) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Circuit courts are courts of general jurisdiction and derive their power from the Michigan Constitution. Okrie v. Michigan , 306 Mich. App. 445, 467, 857 N.W.2d 254 (2014). Specifically, Const. 1963, art. 6, § 13 provides:

The circuit court shall have original jurisdiction in all matters not prohibited by law; appellate jurisdiction from all inferior courts and tribunals except as otherwise provided by law; power to issue, hear and determine prerogative and remedial writs; supervisory and general control

...