Tix v. Tix
0:24-cv-01824
| D. Minnesota | Nov 26, 2024Background
- Kristin Ann Tix (non-tribal member) and Robert William Tix (enrolled member of Prairie Island Mdewakanton Dakota Indian Community - PIIC) married in 2008 and lived outside the reservation; their three children are PIIC members.
- Both parties filed for divorce on the same day in different courts: Kristin in Hennepin County District Court (state), Robert in the PIIC Tribal Court.
- State court ultimately deferred jurisdiction to Tribal Court and stayed the state proceeding; Kristin later voluntarily dismissed her state dissolution case.
- The PIIC Tribal Court held a four-day hearing, issued a final order on custody, child support, and property, and denied Kristin spousal maintenance due to PIIC law.
- Kristin unsuccessfully appealed the Tribal Court’s jurisdiction and orders to the PIIC Court of Appeals, then filed in federal court seeking a declaration that Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction over her as a non-member residing off-reservation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tribal Court Jurisdiction Over Nonmembers | PIIC Tribal Court cannot adjudicate divorce against nonmembers who never lived on tribal land; Montana exceptions don't apply | Jurisdiction proper under Montana’s first exception because of consensual marriage relationship and contacts with PIIC | PIIC Tribal Court had jurisdiction due to consensual relationship and reasonable foreseeability of tribal authority |
| Personal Jurisdiction/Due Process | Lacked minimum contacts with the Tribe to support forum jurisdiction over her | PIIC’s statutory authority, numerous contacts, and procedural fairness satisfied personal jurisdiction; trial and notice adequate | Tribal Court’s findings of sufficient contacts and procedural fairness met due process; no jurisdictional defect |
| Federal Court Authority (Rooker-Feldman, Abstention) | Federal court has authority to decide if tribal court’s judgment is void | Seeks dismissal under Rooker-Feldman, abstention, venue, and necessary parties rules | Federal court has jurisdiction to address tribal court authority over nonmembers (federal question) |
| Remedy/Enforcement of Tribal Judgment | Seeks declaration orders are void and injunction against their enforcement in state courts | Orders are valid and enforceable; plaintiff exhausted tribal appeals | Relief denied; complaint dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Plains Comm. Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (tribal court adjudicative authority over nonmembers is a federal question)
- Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (sets limits and exceptions for tribal civil regulatory authority over nonmembers)
- Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (scope of tribal civil jurisdiction applies equally to legislative and adjudicative context)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standards)
- Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (jurisdiction and anticipatable consequences of dealing with a tribe)
- Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (in rem jurisdiction sufficient for divorce when one party domiciled)