In Re the Estate of Flaws, 885 N.W.2d 580

Background

Lorraine Isburg Flaws (Crow Creek Tribe member) died in 2010; her will named beneficiaries who predeceased her, so her estate proceeded intestate under state law and contained no federal trust land (fee patent issued 2003).
Donald Isburg (Lorraine’s brother) died in 1979; the IBIA probated his estate in 1981 and declared only his two legitimate children (Audrey Courser and Clinton Baker) as heirs; Tamara Isburg Allen was not determined an heir by the IBIA.
Tamara claims Donald was her biological father based on a 1965 birth certificate naming Donald and a sworn January 5, 1966 paternity affidavit executed by Donald; she received SS survivor benefits as his dependent until age 18.
After Lorraine’s death Audrey filed for probate in state court; Tamara intervened seeking heirship to Lorraine’s estate (as Donald’s child and thus collateral heir of Lorraine).
The IBIA denied Tamara’s 2012 petition to reopen Donald’s 1981 probate (finding no trust property jurisdiction); Tamara did not appeal that IBIA denial and instead pursued heirship in Lorraine’s state probate.
The state circuit court found Tamara established paternity under SDCL 29A-2-114(c) (written acknowledgment) and declared her an equal heir with Audrey and Clinton; appellants appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Tamara)	Defendant's Argument (Audrey & Clinton)	Held
Whether state court had jurisdiction to determine heirship when IBIA previously adjudicated Donald’s heirs	State probate may determine Lorraine’s heirs because Lorraine’s estate contains no trust land; federal probate jurisdiction over Donald does not preclude state determination here	IBIA’s 1981 heirship determination for Donald is final and federal supremacy preempts state determination; state action would conflict with federal probate authority	State court jurisdiction proper; Supremacy Clause and federal probate statutes do not preempt state probate of non-trust property
Whether Separation of Powers or res judicata bars state adjudication of paternity/heirship	Tamara seeks to prove identity in Lorraine’s probate, not to reopen Donald’s IBIA probate; no constitutional violation	Allowing state court to find paternity undermines IBIA finality and would improperly relitigate prior administrative determination	No separation-of-powers violation; state adjudication of Lorraine’s heirs does not improperly reopen IBIA probate
Whether statutes of limitation/closure (SDCL 29A-3-412; 43 C.F.R. §30.243) bar Tamara’s claims	Those limitations apply to reopening Donald’s probate or vacating final orders; Tamara seeks heirship in active Lorraine probate, so they do not apply	Tamara’s failure to be named in Donald’s probate is time-barred and precludes her claim in any collateral probate	Statutes relied on are inapplicable to Tamara’s claim in Lorraine’s ongoing state probate
Whether Tamara proved paternity under SDCL 29A-2-114(c)	SDCL 29A-2-114(c) permits paternity proof by written acknowledgment; Donald’s affidavit and birth record suffice	Statute should be read to require paternity be established only in father’s probate; Tamara cannot meet that requirement	SDCL 29A-2-114(c) is unambiguous and disjunctive; Tamara’s written acknowledgement satisfied the statute and she is an heir

Key Cases Cited

White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (discusses limits on state regulatory authority over Indian reservations)
La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (framework for federal preemption analysis)
FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52 (presumption against federal preemption)
Egelhoff v. Breiner, 532 U.S. 141 (preemption and federal intent to occupy an area)
Botz v. Omni Air Int’l, 286 F.3d 488 (Eighth Circuit discussion of preemption and state interests)
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (separation-of-powers principles regarding reopening final judgments)
Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.S. 506 (state court jurisdiction limited where trust allotment probate during trust period is at issue)