HOPI JURISDICTION
KEAMS CANYON, ARIZONA
Civ-020-84
98AC000005
OPINION AND ORDER
Before Sekaquaptewa, Chief Judge,
Lomayesva, and Abbey, Judges.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This Court has previously set forth the facts of this case in Hopi Indian Credit
Association v. Thomas, AP-001-84, (hereinafter Hopi Indian Credit
Association I) and
will do so again only briefly here. This case originally involved a secured chattel mortgage
executed on the Hopi Reservation on April 25, 1969 by the Hopi Indian Credit
Association, an association organized according to the laws of the Hopi Tribe, to Lee S.
Thomas and Mary Inez Thomas, both Hopi citizens, in the amount of $9600.00. Clerk's
Transcript ("CT") 5. Mr. and Ms. Thomas defaulted on the loan in 1974 leaving an
unpaid loan balance of $2900.17. CT 1. Nearly ten years after the default, Hopi Indian
Credit Association sued Mr. Thomas and Ms. Thomas in tribal court to recover the
amount owed on the contract. On July 7, 1984, the trial court granted summary judgment
OPINION AND ORDER
Hopi Indian Credit Association v. Thomas, (Civ-020-84), (98AC000005)
Page 1 of 7
in favor of Mr. and Ms. Thomas based on its determination that the claim was barred by
the six-year federal statute of limitations.
On July 30, 1984, Hopi Indian Credit Association noticed an appeal to this Court
on the ground that the trial court erred by applying federal law before Hopi custom and
tradition. This Court held that Resolution H-12-76 required the trial court to consider
Hopi custom, tradition and culture before it applied foreign law and remanded the case to
the trial court for further consideration. Hopi
Indian
Credit Association I at 3.
On remand, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas once again moved for summary judgment based
on the statute of limitations. They argued that an analysis of Hopi custom was not
necessary because the mortgage contained a choice of law clause expressly selecting
foreign law. The trial court found that the parties' contractual choice of foreign law
required the application of a foreign statute of limitations and therefore rendered an
inquiry into Hopi custom unnecessary. Interpreting the contract, it found the action was
barred by Arizona's six-year statute of limitations and granted summary judgment in favor
of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas. Hopi Indian Credit Association appeals from this final judgment.
II. SYNOPSIS
Hopi statutes of limitations, if any, govern any contractual claim brought in tribal
court notwithstanding a choice of law by the parties. Upon noticed motion by either party
or upon the court's own motion, the trial court shall hold a hearing in order to determine
the existence and relevancy of any Hopi custom, tradition, or culture as a matter of law.
In making its findings, the court may consider any relevant evidence. The parties may
present evidence at summary judgment, at a separate pre-trial hearing, or at trial.
OPINION AND ORDER
Hopi Indian Credit Association v. Thomas, (Civ-020-84), (98AC000005)
Page 2 of 7
III. DISCUSSION
Hopi Indian Credit Association v. Thomas, (Civ-020-84), (98AC000005)
Page 3 of 7
Hay Co. 154 Ariz. 96, 99 (1987). Therefore, a jurisdiction has a strong interest in
applying its own statute to claims brought in its courts. This rationale is even more
compelling where, as here, the contract involves overwhelmingly local contacts. The
plaintiff in this case is a Hopi association organized according to Hopi law, the defendants
are Hopi citizens, and the contract was executed at Hopi.
We hold that this jurisdiction follows the majority rule that a contractual choice of
law provision does not apply to the statute of limitations and that an action on a contract
brought in the Hopi jurisdiction is governed by the Hopi statute of limitations, if any.
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in applying a foreign statute of limitations
rather than the applicable Hopi limitations period.
The courts of the Hopi Tribe, in deciding matters of both substance and procedure,
in case otherwise properly before the Courts of the Hopi Tribe, shall look to and
give weight as precedent to, the following:
(1) The Hopi Constitution and Bylaws;
(2) Ordinances of the Hopi Tribal Council;
(3) Resolutions of the Hopi Tribal Council;
(4) Customs, traditions and culture of the Hopi Tribe;
OPINION AND ORDER
Hopi Indian Credit Association v. Thomas, (Civ-020-84). (98AC000005)
Page 4 of 7
foreign law. Traditionally, a party that wishes to apply foreign law must plead and prove
its existence and substance. Similarly, this Court has held that where a party intends to
raise an issue of unwritten custom, tradition or culture, it
must plead and present clear
proof of the existence and relevance of the custom, tradition or culture. Hopi
Indian Credit Association
I at 5-6.
Hopi
Indian Credit Association
v.
Thomas,
(Civ-020-84). (98AC000005)
Page 6 of 7
Accordingly, we hold that when a relevant Hopi custom, tradition, or culture is
asserted; its existence and substance must be proved with clear evidence and decided by
the court as a matter of law. Therefore, on either the trial court's own motion or on the
noticed motion of a party, the court shall hold a hearing at which the parties may present
any relevant testimony or evidence.
IV. ORDER OF THE COURT
This case is REMANDED to the trial court with instructions to hold a pre-trial
hearing in order to determine whether there is any Hopi custom, tradition, or culture
relenant to the statute of limitations consistent with this Opinion and H-12-76.
Emo Sekaquaptewa Date
Fred Lomayesva Date
Jay Abbey Date
OPINION AND ORDER
Hopi Indian Credit Association v. Thomas, (Civ-020-84), (98AC000005)
Page 7 of 7