--- Am. Tribal Law ----, 2022 WL 16636213 (Colville C.A.), 15 CCAR 65, 8 CTCR 18
Colville Tribal Court of Appeals.
Michael FINLEY, Inchelium Short Stop, Gene Nicholson, and Gene’s Native Smokes, Appellants,
v.
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES, Appellee.
Case No. AP22-002
|
Decided June 23, 2022
Trial Court Case No. CV-OC-2021-44000
Dupris, CJ
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On January 4, 2021 Appellants filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and Damages against Appellee. The basis for the Complaint was Appellants’ dispute in the collection of fuel taxes. The case was filed by Appellants’ Spokesperson, Zachary Love1.
On February 9, 2021 Appellants filed an Amended Complaint, adding three additional Respondents: Jack Ferguson, Colville Business Council (CBC) Councilman, Francis Somday, CCT Executive Director, and Janice Peasley, an accountant for the Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT)2. The Amended Complaint sought injunctive relief regarding the collection of the fuel tax in question, and to recover tobacco rebate tax monies being withheld by CCT.
Appellees filed an answer with affirmative defenses on March 1, 2021. On March 9, 2021 the Court denied Appellants’ motion for temporary orders of restraint and preliminary injunction. The Order was signed on March 18, 2021.
The Court entered an Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Dismissal on May 25, 2021. The Court held, as a matter of law, Appellants were bound by the fuel tax agreement with the State of Washington and were to comply with the law and start paying the fuel tax. The Court dismissed with prejudice Counts I, II, and IV of the Amended Complaint, all relating to the legality of the fuel tax agreement entered into between the CCT and the State of Washington, and its applicability to Appellants and their businesses.
In the ensuing months between the Order of May 25, 2021 and the Final Order of Resolution dated March 30, 2022 the record shows the parties filed other pleadings setting out their positions on the issues that brought them before this Court. Specifically the issues are (1) the withholding of the tobacco tax incentives from Appellant Nicholson, and (2) the dispute on the amount of tax fuel owing by Appellant Finley.
The relevant sections of the Final Order of Resolution of March 30, 2022 are:
(2) Appellants were to comply with the May 25, 2021 orders to pay the fuel taxes;
(3) No material issue of fact or law regarding Appellants’ failure to collect fuel taxes;
(4) A judgment of $88,726.86 against Appellant Finley owed for state fuel taxes;
(5) CCT has withheld $533,018.26 in tobacco incentives from Appellant Nicholson because of the amount he owes in fuel tax payments, the time for withholding being from December 18, 2020 to March 3, 2022;
(6) Appellant Nicholson has failed to collect and remit $268,289.10 in state fuel taxes.
The Final Order also sets out what Appellee has offered as a resolution to making payments regarding the tobacco payments to Appellants once Appellants comply with the state fuel taxes owed. The Court accepted this offer of resolution in its Order.
Although the term “Resolution” was used, Appellants had not agreed to the terms, specifically the withholding of the tobacco payments from Appellant Nicholson and the amount owing for state fuel taxes by Appellant Finley.
On April 11, 2022 Appellant Finley filed a Motion to Reconsider and Vacate Order stating Appellant Nicholson was in agreement with the motion. Appellant disagreed with the proposed resolution order presented by Appellee, and stated he believed they would get a hearing on the evidence before a final order was entered. He stated he disputes the amount alleged that he owes on the state fuel tax; he states Appellants’ due process rights were violated because they were not afforded an opportunity to present their evidence and arguments. The Trial Court did not rule on this motion.
The Appeal was initially filed as an Interlocutory Appeal on April 11, 2022. We noted that the final orders had been entered and designated it as an Appeal of a final order, and granted its filing.
An Initial Hearing was held on June 17, 2022, at which all parties appeared. We found cause to reverse and remand the matter to the Trial Court for a trial on the issues.
DISCUSSION
Basic tenets of procedural due process are that a party is given adequate notice and an opportunity to present his case in a meaningful manner before the Court makes its final decision. See, e.g. Lezard v. Conto, 10 CCAR 23, 9 Am. Tribal Law 119 (2009). The Final Order of Resolution is analogous to an order granting summary judgment. The Court found no material issues of fact or law regarding Appellants’ responsibility for paying the state fuel taxes. It did not rule on the legal basis for allowing the withholding of Appellant Nicholson’s tobacco payments, nor did it rule on Appellant Finley’s assertion that the state fuel taxes he was found liable for were not correct.
Although it was termed a “resolution” it is clear Appellants did not agree with the final orders. Both issues they raised regarding the tobacco payments and the difference in the amount believed owing for state fuel taxes go to genuine issues of material facts and law.
For instance, Appellee, at the Initial Hearing, could not state what legal authority existed to withhold the tobacco payments, yet the Court ruled on the withholding without a hearing on the issue. The Final Order does not address Appellant Finley’s assertion that he has evidence that the amount owing for the state fuel tax is not correct.
We find the Trial Court committed reversible error in not providing Appellants an opportunity to present their evidence in a hearing before a final order was entered by the Court. We so hold.
It is ORDERED that the Final Order of Resolution of March 31, 2022 is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED for a trial on the merits of Appellants’ claims identified herein.
All Citations
--- Am. Tribal Law ----, 2022 WL 16636213, 15 CCAR 65, 8 CTCR 18
Footnotes |
|
Mr. Love was subsequently disbarred by the CBC on June 22, 2021. |
|
The three Respondents were subsequently dismissed from the case by a Court Order entered on March 31, 2022. |
|