--- Am. Tribal Law ----, 2022 WL 16635647 (Colville C.A.), 15 CCAR 67, 8 CTCR 19
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. AP22-021 IA
|
Decided August 16, 2022
Trial Court Case No. CV-OC-2021-44000
Opinion
Dupris, CJ
This matter came before the Court of Appeals on a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Appellee on July 5, 2022. Appellee asks this Court to not allow a full trial on the merits of the issues before us. Appellee asks that we consider the tobacco incentive issue for Appellant Nicholson to be moot, and that we limit the remand for Appellant Finley to only the issue of how much unpaid fuel taxes are owed. Appellee asks that we change our remand to reflect that further proceedings be held, and not necessarily a trial.
Appellants’ object to the requests for modification, asserting (1) there is still no basis identified in law which allows Appellees to withhold the tobacco incentives in lieu of the payment of unpaid fuel taxes; and (2) they should be provided an opportunity to present all of their arguments in that being pro se they were at a disadvantage in being able to do so.
Based on the reasoning set out below we find cause to deny in part and grant in part Appellee’s Motion for Reconsideration.
DISCUSSION
TOBACCO INCENTIVES ISSUE
Appellee states the tobacco incentive payments are “provided voluntarily by the Tribes to tobacco retailers such as Appellant Nicholson’s business.”1 (Brief in Support of Appellee’s Motion for Reconsideration, page 2). Appellee acknowledges that the correct amount due Appellant Nicholson for the tobacco incentives is set out in the Trial Court’s Final Order of Resolution dated March 30, 202, that is, $533,018.26. The nature of the origin of the tobacco incentives are not before this Court. The fact is, it does exist.
The question still remains of what legal authority did the Court exercise in seizing the tobacco incentives without allowing Appellant Nicholson an opportunity to contest such seizure? We asked this question at the Initial Hearing on June 17, 2022. The arguments Appellee makes in support of asking to find the question moot do not address this question. Instead Appellee sets out what other possible consequences Appellant Nicholson may face because of his failure to pay his fuel taxes. We find cause to deny reconsideration of the tobacco incentive inquiry.
FUEL TAXES OWING
Appellee asks that we limit the inquiry of the amount of fuel tax owed by Appellant Finley to just that issue, and not a full trial on the issue of the fuel taxes. We agree. The Trial Court entered a judgment that found, as a matter of law, there was no genuine issue of law regarding the legality of the fuel taxes agreement between Appellee and the State of Washington, and no genuine issue of fact regarding Appellee’s liability to pay said taxes.
This appeal was granted as a final appeal even though Appellants filed an Interlocutory Appeal on the issues. We found it was a final appeal because the Trial Court’s order of March 30, 2022 (file stamped March 31, 2022) entered orders of final resolution of the issues presented by way of an order for summary judgment on the documents and pleadings on file.
Our order in which we granted the Appeal, dated April 29, 2022, specifically limits the issues on appeal to the withholding of the tobacco incentives and that the Final Order of Resolution “was entered without Appellant’s opportunity to present their [sic] evidence on record, including a disputed amount of the delinquent fuel charges, as well as evidence of their [sic] ability to pay the delinquent amount ordered.”
The issue we identified regarding Appellant Finley, which was not argued by Appellant Nicholson, was that he had a different amount owing on the fuel tax, and was not afforded an opportunity to present it and the circumstances of how it was to be paid to the Court. These are the only issues left for the Trial Court to make an informed decision on. The legality of the fuel tax agreement and its applicability to Appellants has already been made, as a matter of law, and are not open to re-litigation in this case. We so hold.
Based on the foregoing, now, therefore
It is ORDERED that:
This matter is remanded to the Trial Court for proceedings consistent with due process to address (1) the legal authority to withhold Appellant Nicholson’s tobacco incentive payments in a case dealing with fuel tax payments; and (2) the amount of fuel tax owing by Appellant Finley, as well as an inquiry into his ability to pay it.
Further, the proceedings need not be a trial, as long as the parties are afforded adequate due process.
All Citations
--- Am. Tribal Law ----, 2022 WL 16635647, 15 CCAR 67, 8 CTCR 19
Footnotes |
|
CTC, Chapter 6-8, Tobacco Code, does not have a provision for the tobacco incentives. |
|