BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
SB 406 (Evans)
As Amended January 6, 2014
Hearing Date: January 14, 2014
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Tribal Court Civil Money Judgment Act
DESCRIPTION
This bill would establish the Tribal Court Civil Money Judgment
Act to govern the process by which a party could seek
recognition of a tribal court money judgment in California state
courts.
BACKGROUND
Native American tribes are "domestic dependent nations that
exercise inherent sovereign authority over their members and
territories." (Cal. Jur. 3d. Indians Sec. 2.) For a tribal
court to hear a case, it must have both subject matter
jurisdiction (the power to hear the specific kind of claim that
is brought to that court), and personal jurisdiction (the
requirement that a defendant have certain minimum contacts with
the forum in which the court sits) over the defendant.
At times, just as a party may seek to enforce another state's
judgment against a resident of California by bringing their
judgment to a California court, a party who has obtained a
tribal court judgment may turn to California courts to seek
recognition and enforcement of his or her tribal court judgment
against a California resident. In contrast to the full faith
and credit that is constitutionally required to be given to the
judgments rendered by sister states' courts, under existing law,
California state courts generally recognize tribal court
judgments under the principles of comity, as they do the
judgments of foreign country tribunals.
(more)
SB 406 (Evans)
Page 2 of ?
Comity, as described by the Ninth Circuit in Wilson v.
Marchington (9th Cir. 1997) 127 F.3d 805, 809-810, "'is neither
a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere
courtesy and good will, upon the other.' As a general policy,
'comity should withheld only when its acceptance could be
contrary or prejudicial to the nation called upon to give it
effect.' At its core, comity involves a balancing of interests.
'It is the recognition which one nation allows within its
territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of
another nation, having due regard both to international duty and
convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens, or of other
persons who are under the protection of its laws.' Although the
status of Indian tribes as 'dependent domestic nations' presents
some unique circumstances, comity still affords the best general
analytical framework for recognizing tribal judgments" (internal
citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit also made clear in Wilson
that "Comity does not require that a tribe utilize judicial
procedures identical to those used in the United States Courts."
(Id. at 811).
Currently, claims to recognize money judgments of foreign
country tribunals, including of tribal courts, are governed by
the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgment Act (UFCMJRA, Code
Civ. Proc. Sec. 1713 et seq.) That process, however, is
reportedly costly and time-consuming. In 2012, the Judicial
Council, upon recommendation of several of its committees,
including the California Tribal Court/State Court Forum and the
Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee, adopted a proposal
that would provide "a discrete procedure for recognizing and
enforcing tribal court civil judgments, providing for swifter
recognition of such judgments while continuing to apply the
principles of comity appropriate to judgments of sovereign
tribes." (Report to the Judicial Council: Judicial
Council-sponsored Legislation: Tribal Court Civil Judgment Act,
October 26, 2012.)
This bill, based on that proposal, would establish a new legal
framework known as the Tribal Court Civil Money Judgment Act,
governing the rules and procedures for seeking recognition of a
tribal court money judgment in California state courts. The Act
would, among other things: (1) provide timelines for both
submitting an application for recognition and timely objecting
to recognition; (2) provide rules for proper venue; (3) specify
notice requirements; (4) list the requisite contents of an
application and supporting documentation; (5) mandate grounds
SB 406 (Evans)
Page 3 of ?
for declining recognition and provide discretionary grounds for
declining recognition; and (6) specify grounds for staying
enforcement of a judgment.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , the Uniform Foreign-County Money Judgments
Recognitions Act (the UFCMJRA), governs the enforcement of
judgments of foreign countries within California courts, and
provides the grounds for nonrecognition. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
1713 et seq.) The UFCMJRA does not apply to a judgment for
taxes; a fine or other penalty; or a judgment for divorce,
support, or maintenance, or other judgment rendered in
connection with domestic relations. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
1715(b)(1)-(3)(A).)
Existing law , the UFCMJRA, defines "foreign-country judgment" to
mean a judgment of a court of a foreign country, as otherwise
defined, including a judgment by any Indian tribe recognized by
the government of the United States. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
1714(b); see Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1714(a) for definition of
"foreign country.")
Existing federal case law provides that, as a general rule, the
recognition of a tribal court order within U.S. federal courts
is governed by the principles of comity. (Wilson v. Marchington
(9th Cir. 1997) 127 F.3d 805.)
Existing federal case law provides that federal courts must
neither recognize nor enforce tribal judgments, as follows: (1)
if the tribal court did not have both personal and subject
matter jurisdiction; or (2) if the defendant was not afforded
due process of the law. (Id. at 810, 811.)
Existing federal case law provides that a federal court may, in
its discretion, decline to recognize and enforce a tribal
judgment on equitable grounds, including in the following
circumstances: (1) the judgment was obtained by fraud; (2) the
judgment conflicts with another final judgment entitled to
recognition; (3) the judgment is inconsistent with the parties'
contractual choice of forum; or (4) recognition of the judgment,
or the cause of action upon which it is based, is against the
public policy of the United States or the forum state in which
recognition is sought. (Id.)
This bill would establish the Tribal Court Civil Money Judgment
SB 406 (Evans)
Page 4 of ?
Act to govern the procedures for applying and objecting to an
application for the recognition of tribal court money judgments
of federally recognized Indian tribes in California state
courts. The Act would not apply to the following types of tribal
court money judgments:
for taxes, fines, or other penalties;
for which federal law requires that states grant full faith
and credit recognition, including child support orders, as
specified;
for which state law provides for recognition, including child
support orders recognized under specified state law; or
for decedent's estates, guardianships, conservatorships,
internal affairs of trusts, powers of attorney, or other
tribal court money judgments that arise in proceedings that
are or would be governed by the Probate Code.
This bill would specify that the proper county for the filing of
an application is either the county in which any respondent
resides or owns property and if no respondent is a resident, any
county in this state.
This bill would require specific the information to be included
in the application, to be signed under penalty of perjury,
including:
the applicant's name and address;
the amount of the award granted in the tribal court money
judgment that remains unpaid; and
specified information relating to any accrued interest,
including a citation to the supporting authority.
This bill would specify documents that must be attached to the
application, including:
a copy of the tribal court rules of procedure pursuant to
which the money judgment was entered; and
a declaration under penalty of perjury by the tribal court
clerk, applicant, or applicant's attorney stating, based on
personal knowledge, that the case that resulted in the entry
of the judgment was conducted in compliance with those rules.
This bill would provide for the service of notice upon the
respondent of the filing of the application to recognize and
enter the tribal court money judgment.
This bill would provide that, if no objections are timely filed,
the clerk must certify that no objections were timely filed, and
a judgment shall be entered. This bill would provide that the
SB 406 (Evans)
Page 5 of ?
judgment entered by the superior court must be based on and
contain the provisions and terms of the tribal court money
judgment and entered in the same manner, have the same effect,
and be enforceable in the same manner as any civil judgment,
order, or decree of a court of this state.
This bill would provide timelines for service and filing of an
objection (within 30 days of service of the notice of filing),
replies to the objection (to be set by the superior court), and
for a hearing upon the matter (within 45 days from the date the
objection is filed absent good cause for a later hearing). The
bill would also specify the permissible grounds for objection.
This bill would require the superior court to decline
recognition and entry of a tribal court money judgment in any of
the following circumstances:
the tribal court did not have personal jurisdiction over the
respondent;
the tribal court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over
the subject matter;
the tribal court judge was not impartial; or
the tribal court did not provide procedures compatible with
the requirements of due process of law.
This bill would permit the superior court, in its discretion, to
decline to recognize and enter a tribal court money judgment on
any of the following grounds:
the defendant in the proceeding in the tribal court did not
receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable
the defendant to defend;
the judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing
party of an adequate opportunity to present its case;
the judgment or the cause of action or claim for relief on
which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy
of the state or of the United States;
the judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive
judgment;
the proceeding in the tribal court was contrary to an
agreement between the parties under which the dispute in
question was to be determined otherwise than by proceedings in
that tribal court;
in the case of jurisdiction based on personal service only
the tribal court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the
trial of the action;
the judgment was rendered under circumstances that raise
substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court
SB 406 (Evans)
Page 6 of ?
with respect to the judgment;
the specific proceeding in the tribal court leading to the
judgment was not compatible with the due process of law; or
the judgment includes recovery for a claim of defamation,
unless the court determines that the defamation law applied by
the tribal court provided at least as much protection for
freedom of speech and the press as provided by both the U.S.
and California Constitutions.
This bill would provide that, if objections have been timely
filed, the applicant has the burden of establishing that the
tribal court money judgment is entitled to recognition. If the
applicant has met the burden, the burden shifts to the party
resisting recognition to establish that a ground for
nonrecognition, as listed above, exists.
This bill would require the superior court to grant a stay of
enforcement, as specified, if the respondent demonstrates any of
the following:
an appeal form the tribal court judgment is pending or may be
taken in the tribal court;
a stay of enforcement of the tribal court money judgment has
been granted by the tribal court; or
any other circumstances exists where the interest of justice
require a stay of enforcement.
This bill would specify the time period for commencing an action
to recognize a tribal court judgment as the earlier of either:
(1) the time during which the tribal court money judgment is
effective within the territorial jurisdiction of the tribal
court; or (2) ten years from the date that the tribal court
money judgment became effective in the tribal jurisdiction.
This bill would permit the superior court, after notice to all
parties, to attempt to resolve any issues raised regarding a
tribal court money judgment by contacting the tribal court judge
who issued the judgment, as specified.
This bill would specify that the UFCMJRA applies to all actions
commenced in superior court before the effective date of this
bill in which the issue of recognition of a tribal court money
judgment is raised, and that the provisions of this Act apply to
all actions commenced in superior court on or after the
effective date of this bill.
This bill would specify that a judgment entered under this Act
SB 406 (Evans)
Page 7 of ?
shall not limit the right of a party to seek enforcement of any
part of a judgment, order or decree entered into a tribal court
that is not encompassed by the judgment entered under this act.
This bill would define various terms for the purpose of the Act,
including:
"Due process" includes, but is not limited to, the right to be
represented by legal counsel, to receive reasonable notice and
an opportunity for a hearing, to call and cross-examine
witnesses, and to present evidence and argument to an
impartial decision.
"Tribal court" means any court or other tribunal of any
federally recognized Indian nation, tribe, pueblo, band, or
Alaska Native village, duly established under tribal or
federal law, including Courts of Indian Offenses organized
under the Code of Federal Regulations, as specified.
"Tribal court money judgment" means any written judgment,
decree, or order of a tribal court for a specified amount of
money that was issued in a civil action or proceeding that is
final, conclusive, and enforceable by the tribal court in
which it was issued and is duly authenticated in accordance
with the laws and procedures of the tribe or tribal court.
This bill would specify that nothing in this Act shall be deemed
or construed to expand or limit the jurisdiction of either the
state or any Indian tribe.
This bill would also strike reference to judgments by any Indian
tribe recognized by the government of the United States from the
definition of foreign-county judgment in the UCFMJRA.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
Oftentimes, our state courts are asked to enforce the judgment
of a non-California court, which can include judgments of
tribal courts. Because tribes are sovereign, their status is
similar to that of foreign countries. Accordingly, California
courts recognize tribal court judgments under the principles
of comity, as they would judgments of foreign countries. (See
Wilson v. Marchington (1997) 127 F.3d 805.) As such, as long
as the tribal court issuing the decision had fair procedures,
state courts generally respect the decision and will enforce
SB 406 (Evans)
Page 8 of ?
them upon request.
Under existing law, a party seeking enforcement of a civil
tribal court money judgment in a state superior court
currently must do so under the Uniform Foreign-Country Money
Judgments Recognition Act (UFCMJRA). The UFCMJRA process can
be costly and time-consuming for both the parties and the
court, in some cases even causing parties to unnecessarily
re-litigate what the tribal court has already decided.
This bill proposes to establish the Tribal Court Civil Money
Judgment Act, a new legal framework for seeking enforcement of
tribal court money judgments under procedures that are modeled
upon the simpler procedures applicable to judgments from the
courts of other states, while still applying the principles of
comity currently required for judgments from sovereign
nations. The framework would not alter the legal standards
that state courts apply in recognizing and enforcing tribal
court money judgments, but merely clarify and consolidate the
procedures for doing so into a uniform and streamlined
statutory scheme.
The Judicial Council, co-sponsor of this bill, adds that:
California is home to more people of Indian ancestry than any
other state in the nation. At this time, there are
approximately 110 federally recognized tribes in California,
second only to the number of tribes in the state of Alaska.
Each tribe is sovereign, with powers of internal
self-government, including the authority to develop and
operate a court system. Currently, approximately 22 tribal
courts are operating in California, and several other courts
are under development. [ . . . ]
SB 406 applies only to civil judgments and orders by tribal
courts for money judgments. The bill does not apply to
judgments in actions that already have specific recognition
under federal law, or for judgments or order for possession of
real or personal property, or judgments for specific
performance or injunctive relief. SB 406 also exempts money
judgments for taxes, fines, and proceedings that would be
subject to the Probate Code. [ . . . ]
The establishment of this process and timeline for considering
these applications will make enforcement of existing rights
more efficient and economical for both litigants and the
SB 406 (Evans)
Page 9 of ?
courts without altering any party's substantive rights under
current law. Thus, SB 406 will ensure appropriate recognition
of tribal court civil money judgments in state courts in a
manner that will benefit both court systems.
2. This bill provides procedure for enforcement without
altering substantive law with respect to the enforceability of
tribal court money judgments
This bill establishes the Tribal Court Civil Money Judgment Act,
a new legal framework for seeking enforcement of tribal court
money judgments under procedures that are modeled upon the
procedures applicable to judgments from the courts of other
states, while still applying the principles of comity consistent
with existing law and the Ninth Circuit Wilson v. Marchington
(9th Cir. 1997) 127 F.3d 805 decision. In doing so, the bill
would arguably make the enforcement of these rights more
efficient and economical for both litigants and the courts.
Co-sponsor of this bill, the Judicial Council argues that "this
bill would not change the legal standards state courts apply in
recognizing and enforcing specified civil tribal court
judgments, but only clarify the procedures for doing so and
consolidate them into a single, streamlined statutory scheme."
Essentially:
A party seeking enforcement of a tribal court money judgment
in a California superior court under SB 406 must file an
application that includes all the information about the case
required in an application for recognition of a sister state
judgment, plus a copy of the tribal court rules of procedure
and a declaration that the case was tried in compliance with
those rules. The party seeking enforcement must give notice to
the party against whom the tribal court judgment was entered,
and that party has an opportunity to oppose enforcement. If
there is no opposition within 30 days, a superior court
judgment based on the tribal court civil money judgment is
entered automatically. If there is opposition, the superior
court holds a hearing on the issue within 45 days.
In other words, any money judgments that are non-enforceable
under existing law would continue to be non-enforceable under SB
406-the bill merely specifies the procedures for seeking
enforcement, as well as for objecting to enforcement, of a
tribal court judgment. To this end, this bill tracks the
grounds upon which a court must deny recognition and
SB 406 (Evans)
Page 10 of ?
enforcement, as well as the grounds under which the court may,
in its discretion, decline recognition and enforcement under the
existing Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgment Recognition Act
(UFCMJRA), which currently applies to (money) judgments of any
Indian tribe recognized by the government of the United States.
(See Code Civ. Proc. Secs. 1714, 1716.) Namely, the court must
decline recognition if the tribal court: (1) did not have
personal jurisdiction; (2) did not have subject matter
jurisdiction; (3) the tribal court judge was not impartial; or
(4) the tribal court did not provide procedures compatible with
the requirements of due process of law. Additionally, under both
this bill and the UCFMJRA, the courts of this state have the
discretion to decline recognition on any one of the following
grounds:
the defendant in the proceeding in the tribal/foreign court
did not receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to
enable the defendant to defend;
the judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing
party of an adequate opportunity to present its case;
the judgment or the cause of action or claim for relief on
which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy
of the state or of the United States;
the judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive
judgment;
the proceeding in the tribal/foreign court was contrary to an
agreement between the parties under which the dispute in
question was to be determined otherwise than by proceedings in
that tribal/foreign court;
in the case of jurisdiction based on personal service only
the tribal/foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum
for the trial of the action;
the judgment was rendered under circumstances that raise
substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court
with respect to the judgment;
the specific proceeding in the tribal/foreign court leading to
the judgment was not compatible with the due process of law;
or
the judgment includes recovery for a claim of defamation,
unless the court determines that the defamation law applied by
the tribal/foreign court provided at least as much protection
for freedom of speech and the press as provided by both the
U.S. and California Constitutions.
Moreover, as to any concerns that this bill might inadvertently
expand or limit the jurisdiction of either tribal or state
courts over matters, this bill would preclude the Act from being
SB 406 (Evans)
Page 11 of ?
deemed or construed in any way that expands or limits the
jurisdiction of either the state or of any Indian tribe. This
bill would not create any new right to seek recognition or
enforcement of a money judgment in California state courts.
As a matter of public policy, insofar as California courts
already recognize the judgments of tribal courts under the
UCFMJRA, it would appear reasonable to provide clear, distinct,
streamlined, and uniform procedures throughout the state as to
the process for bringing such claims. Moreover, this bill would
arguably provide parties clear notice of the procedures with
which they must comply to bring an application or object to
recognition. In doing so, the bill also could make the process
more efficient and economical for both the parties and the
courts-the courts would obtain the information they need in a
timely fashion, the parties would receive notice of claims and
objections in a timely fashion, and all involved would avoid the
added expense of unnecessary delays.
3. Opposition concerns
Staff notes that several individuals, as well as Stand Up for
California, and West Bank Homeowners Association have written in
opposition to this bill. As the January 6, 2014 amendments
substantially narrowed the scope of this bill to more closely
mirror the substantive requirements of the UCFMJRA, the
following description of opposition arguments is focused upon
those letters discussing the bill's current provisions.
The opponents' chief arguments appear to center on the perceived
inequality between tribal courts and state courts, and
particularly on issues of due process and fairness, as well as
the impartiality and accountability of tribal court judges. The
opponents argue that even where tribal courts' written protocols
appear consistent with federal and state rules, they are not
always adhered to in practice and that tribal court judges are
not necessarily independent and are often hired, paid, and
influenced by the tribal council. Moreover, opponents assert
that tribal court judges face no accountability in California
courts for the judgments they hand down.
Additionally, the opponents argue, among other things, that:
It is unfair to place the burden and financial cost on the
respondent to prove that grounds for objection to recognition
of a tribal court money judgment existed.
This bill allows for the denial of constitutional rights in
SB 406 (Evans)
Page 12 of ?
tribal courts in violation of California's status as a Public
Law 280 state.
This bill allows tribes to go back 10 years and enforce
judgments, even though there is no assurance that the
judgments were handed down in a fair and equitable manner in
parity with state courts. Moreover, the tribal court may not
have been the appropriate court of jurisdiction and there also
is no current "process to ensure that citizens have the right
to be heard in the correct jurisdictional court."
The bill does not recognize boundary disputes with some tribes
that have yet to be determined by an act of Congress.
The grounds for objection fail to provide adequate protections
for respondents and should be included among the mandatory
grounds for declining recognition.
A tribe presenting its tribal court money judgment in state
courts should be required to "consider and accept presentation
of the tribal court money judgment as a waiver of its
sovereign immunity to suit."
The bill should limit the amount of interest to be accrued to
be identical to that allowed under California law (opponents
cite the issue of pay day loans).
A condition of comity should be reciprocity and for the tribe
to allow suit for violations under the United States or state
constitutions.
The Judicial Council notes that the concerns can essentially be
characterized by the viewpoint that tribal court judgments
should not be enforced by the state courts unless tribal courts
can be shown to apply the same standards and due process that
the state courts do. The Judicial Council responds that this is
simply not the standard reflected by current law:
Tribes, whether the opponents approve or not, are treated as
sovereigns by the United States. As such, they do not receive
the same rights as states, but also do not have to order
themselves or their courts in the same way as states do. [ .
. . ] There is general consensus (but no United States Supreme
Court authority) that tribes are not covered by the federal
full faith and credit statute (28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738), but that
instead the principles of comity do apply. In Wilson v.
Marchington (9th Cir. 1997) 127 F.3d 805, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeal determined that, as a general rule, the
recognition of a tribal court order within the United States
federal courts was governed by the principles of comity. [ .
. . ] It is to these judgments and orders -those recognized
under the principles of comity - that the proposed legislation
SB 406 (Evans)
Page 13 of ?
is directed.
Currently in California, parties seeking to have a tribal
court judgment recognized by a state court must proceed under
the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act
(UFCMJRA), found at sections 1713 - 1724 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, which codifies the principles of comity in
enforcing sovereign court judgments for money. The proposed
legislation is intended to simplify and streamline the
procedures to be used in recognizing tribal court civil
judgments for money, clarifying the state court procedures,
including clarifying what the holder of the judgment must file
with the court. But it does so without changing the legal
standards the courts are to apply under the current law.
[ . . . ] The objections that may be considered by the
court-dealing with matters of due process and unfairness in
the proceedings at the tribal court-are set out in proposed
sections 1735(b) and (c). The opponents object that the
factors to be considered are not sufficient, that all that are
in the law should be mandatory reasons for refusing to enforce
the judgment (rather than some leaving discretion for
enforcement with the court), and that the burden should not
lie with the judgment debtor to prove that the various grounds
for the objections-especially the unfairness of the proceeding
at the tribal court--exist. (See Sec. 1734(d).) However all
those provisions are currently the law. All are in the
Uniform Foreign County Money Judgments Recognition Act. So if
the Legislature should decide not to enact this statute, the
objections raised by the opponents will not be resolved.
Their complaints will simply apply to current [Code of Civil
Procedure] sections 1713-1724, rather than to new sections
1730 et seq.
Staff also notes the following with respect to the above
arguments:
When a party objects to recognition, the burden is first on
the applicant to establish that the tribal court money
judgment is entitled to recognition. Unfortunately, while the
law can require elements such as fairness and impartiality,
the court must hear evidence to determine whether or not those
elements are met in a particular case. As such, costs to the
parties are unavoidable.
The issue raised with respect to the lack of a current process
to ensure the tribal court was the "correct jurisdictional
court" is arguably addressed by the bill's requirement that
SB 406 (Evans)
Page 14 of ?
the tribal court had both subject matter jurisdiction and
personal jurisdiction.
The bill does not grant tribes a new right to go back 10 years
to enforce judgment. The provision referenced in the bill
provides that an action to recognize a tribal court money
judgment or any renewal thereof must be commenced within the
earlier of either: (1) the time during which the judgment is
effective within the territorial jurisdiction of the tribal
jurisdiction; or (2) 10 years from the date that the judgment
became effective in the tribal jurisdiction. This provision is
identical to the UFCMJRA (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1721). A 10
year statute of limitations also exists for actions upon a
judgment or decree from other state courts under Section 337.5
of the Code of Civil Procedure. This bill, thus, appears
consistent with existing law.
Despite concerns about boundary disputes, the January 6, 2014
amendments limit this bill to money judgments; it does not
apply to property judgments.
The proposals to require reciprocity, to limit the interest
accrued on judgments, to make the discretionary grounds to
decline recognition mandatory, and to require tribes to waive
sovereign immunity in order to allow for recognition of their
tribal court judgments in California state courts are all
arguably outside of the scope of this bill because they go
beyond mere procedure changes. The issues raised by opponents
are equally applicable to existing law.
Finally, Stand Up for California also argues that the revised
language provides no opportunity for the respondent to challenge
or for the superior court to take into consideration the
underlying merits supporting the money judgment, and that while
the principles of comity do not call for re-examination of the
underlying merits of a claim, "there are unique factors relating
to federal Indian law that require the declination of comity in
on-going federal-state-tribal disputes." To that end, their
letter urges consideration of an amendment to add that:
Nothing in this title shall authorize the recognition of a
tribal court money judgment if the money judgment is based in
whole or in part upon an asserted possessory interest in real
property that is the subject of dispute as to whether such
real property is tribally-owned land, land held in trust by
the United States for the benefit of an individual Indian or
Indian tribe, a tribally-held or individually-held Indian
allotment subject to a restriction against alienation by the
United States, where such dispute is pending in any federal,
SB 406 (Evans)
Page 15 of ?
state or tribal court, whether civil or criminal, or before
any officer or administrative agency of federal, state or
tribal government. A pending dispute is one where a final
determination of the status of the real property has not been
determined and pursuant to processes or procedures in place,
is the subject of review by the tribunal or officer or agency
at issue.
Again, this bill would not apply to property judgments and as
such is outside the scope of this bill. Furthermore, only final
and conclusive judgments can be enforced under both this bill.
(See proposed Section 1738 which requires a stay of enforcement
of a tribal court money judgment where an appeal from the tribal
court money judgment is pending or may be taken from in the
tribal court.)
Support : None Known
Opposition : Stand Up for California; West Bank Homeowners
Association; several individuals
HISTORY
Source : Judicial Council; Blue Lake Rancheria
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : SB 639 (Harman, Ch. 212, Stats. 2007)
repealed the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act
(enacted in 1967) and enact the current Uniform Foreign-Country
Money Judgments Recognition Act.
**************