Tix v. Tix

Filing 30

ORDER denying as moot 14 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; denying 20 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting summary judgment to Defendant on Count I of the Complaint; and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint 1 with prejudice. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 11/26/2024. (BJP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Kristin Ann Tix,
n/k/a Kristin Ann McGowan,

No. 24-cv-1824 (KMM/ECW)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

Robert William Tix,
Defendant.
This case arises out of a tribal court’s conclusion that it had jurisdiction over a
marriage dissolution proceeding between a member of the tribe and his nonmember spouse
and the court’s final resolution of the parties’ divorce. Plaintiff, Kristin Ann Tix, is the
nonmember, and in her complaint, she seeks a declaratory judgment that the tribal court’s
decisions are null and void because it lacked jurisdiction over her. She also seeks an
injunction barring Defendant from enforcing the tribal court’s final orders in the Minnesota
state courts. Defendant, Robert William Tix, filed a motion to dismiss, Doc. 14, and
Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion for summary judgment, Doc. 20. The parties agreed
that the relevant facts are not in dispute and the issues in this case are purely legal. Doc. 11.
For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and
grants summary judgment to Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(1).

1

BACKGROUND
Defendant Robert Tix and Plaintiff Kristin Tix 1 were married in September 2008
in Minneapolis. Compl. ¶ 10. They have three minor children together who are 6, 12, and
14 years old. Id. Robert is an enrolled member of the Prairie Island Mdewakanton Dakota
Indian Community (hereafter “PIIC” or “the Tribe”). Id. ¶ 11. Kristin is not a member of
the Tribe and is not eligible for enrollment with the PIIC or any other Native American
tribe. All three of the parties’ children are enrolled members of the PIIC. Id. ¶ 11.
During the parties’ marriage, the family did not reside on PIIC reservation lands.
Instead, they lived together in Edina, Minnesota, a city within Hennepin County. Compl.
¶ 12. Neither Kristin nor Robert were employed during their marriage. Id. ¶ 13. To support
themselves, the couple relied on Robert’s per capita payments from the Tribe. Robert’s per
capita distribution in 2021 was just over $198,000, and in 2022, he received a little more
than $172,000. Id. ¶ 24.2
Eventually, the couple decided to divorce, and the parties engaged in simultaneous
proceedings in different judicial theaters. In February 2022, they separately filed petitions
for dissolution of the marriage. On February 9, 2022, Kristin filed a summons and petition

In Plaintiff’s memorandum supporting her motion for summary judgment and in her complaint,
she states: “Plaintiff goes by the last name of Tix (not McGowan, her maiden name), only because
she contests the legality of the tribal court order purporting to change her name, not out of affection
for the name itself.” Doc. 21 at 3 n.1; Compl. ¶ 6 n.1, Doc. 1. To avoid any confusion in the use
of last names, the Court refers to both parties by their first names or as “Plaintiff” and “Defendant”
throughout this Order.
1

2

These numbers differ somewhat from those reflected elsewhere in the record, see Ex. G 170,
but those differences are immaterial to this dispute.

2

in Hennepin County District Court. Compl. ¶ 14; Debele Decl., Ex. A at 1 ¶ 4.3 The same
day, Robert filed his petition in in the Court of the Prairie Island Mdewakanton Dakota
Community (hereafter “the Tribal Court”). Ex. A at 1 ¶ 3.4
On February 17, 2022, Kristin also filed a petition in Hennepin County District
Court for an Order for Protection (“OFP”) against Robert on behalf of herself and the
couple’s three minor children. Compl. ¶ 16. The state court issued an ex parte OFP and set
an evidentiary hearing for May 24, 2022. Ex. A at 2 ¶ 15. On March 23, 2022, the Prairie
Island Family Services agency filed a petition for children in need of protective services in
the Tribal Court concerning the couple’s three children. The Tribal Court set a hearing on
the petition for April 20, 2022. Id. at 3 ¶ 24.
Meanwhile, on March 9, 2022, the Hennepin County District Court handling
Kristin’s dissolution proceeding held an initial case management conference, and Robert
filed a motion asking the state court to dismiss or stay Kristin’s dissolution proceeding and
to dismiss the parties’ children from the OFP. Compl. ¶ 17. At a settlement conference with

3

Defendant filed several exhibits in support of his motion for dismissal, which are attached as
Exhibits A through J to the Declaration of Gary Debele. Doc. 17. The Court cites to these exhibits
as “Ex. __” throughout this Order.
4

Due to issues with achieving personal service of the summons and petition upon Robert, the
Hennepin County District Court eventually found that Kristin’s dissolution case “commenced” on
March 11, 2022. Ex. A at 6. Eventually, the Tribal Court determined that, pursuant to Tribal law,
Robert’s dissolution proceeding commenced at the time it was filed and that Kristin was personally
served on February 18, 2022. Id. at 4 ¶ 28; Ex. B at 1 n.1.

3

Prairie Island Family Services, the parties agreed to a temporary supervised visitation
schedule for Robert. Ex. A at 3 ¶ 25; Compl. ¶ 18.5
Kristin moved to dismiss Robert’s dissolution proceeding in the Tribal Court on
grounds that the Tribal Court lacked subject-matter and personal jurisdiction. Ex. B at 2–
3. On April 5, 2022, the Tribal Court denied Kristin’s motion. Ex. B. The Tribal Court
found that it had jurisdiction over all the issues in the dissolution proceeding and over the
ongoing child-protection proceedings. The Tribal Court declined to enforce the ex parte
OFP that had been issued by the Hennepin County District Court. Compl. ¶ 19; Ex. A at 3
¶ 27.
On April 6, 2022, in Kristin’s Hennepin County dissolution proceeding, the
Hennepin County court issued an order deferring jurisdiction to the Tribal Court and
staying Kristin’s dissolution case until the Tribal Court resolved Robert’s dissolution and
custody petition. Compl. ¶ 20; Ex. A at 13 ¶ 1. However, the Hennepin County District
Court went forward with the May 24, 2022 evidentiary hearing on Kristin’s petition for an
OFP. The court found that Kristin did not meet her burden for an OFP to issue against
Robert with regard to the couple’s children, but she had shown she was entitled to an OFP
personally. Compl. ¶ 22.
Kristin twice attempted to appeal the Hennepin County District Court’s decision
transferring jurisdiction to the Tribal Court to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. First, she

5

Prairie Island Family Services eventually moved to close the protective services matter in early
May 2023 because the parties addressed the protection concerns in private proceedings. Ex. G
¶ 36.

4

appealed the May 11, 2022 order staying her dissolution proceeding and deferring
jurisdiction to the Tribal Court. The Minnesota Court of Appeals dismissed the first appeal
because the May 11 order was not a final order appealable under Minnesota appellate
procedural rules. Ex. C. The appellate court remanded the matter to Hennepin County
District Court, instructing the district court to consider whether it was appropriate to
continue the stay. Id. On September 13, 2022, the district court concluded that the matter
should remain stayed. Ex. E; Ex. D at 1–2. Kristin filed her second appeal of that
September 13 order, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals again dismissed the appeal
because there was no final appealable order in the district court proceeding. Ex. D at 3–4.
On September 30, 2022, Kristin filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of her Hennepin
County dissolution proceeding pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.01(a). Ex. F.
The Tribal Court held an evidentiary hearing in Robert’s dissolution case over four
days in early May 2023. Compl. ¶ 23; Ex. G at 1. On July 21, 2023, the Tribal Court issued
its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order for Judgment, and Judgment and Decree.
Ex. G; Compl. ¶ 23. In relevant part, the Tribal Court found that Kristin was not entitled to
any spousal maintenance—it found that Robert’s income was derived from the per capita
payments he received from the Tribe, and a provision in the PIIC Judicial Code prohibits
a Tribal Court from considering per capita payments when establishing any order for
maintenance. Ex. G ¶ 182–83 (citing PIIC Judicial Code, Ch. VI, § 6(d)); see also id. Order
¶ 30; Compl. ¶ 24. The Tribal Court required Robert to pay monthly child support to
Kristin. Ex. G ¶ 23. The Tribal Court also divided parenting time between Robert and

5

Kristin, but Kristin alleges that the Tribal Court’s division reduced her time from 50 percent
to 35 percent. Compl. ¶ 23.
Kristin appealed the Tribal Court’s final order from July 21, 2023 and its April 4,
2022 order denying her motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction to the PIIC Court of
Appeals. Compl. ¶¶ 26–27. On January 26, 2024, the PIIC Tribal Court of Appeals issued
a decision affirming both orders. Compl. ¶ 27. The Tribal Court of Appeals rejected
Kristin’s arguments that the lower Tribal Court lacked personal jurisdiction over her and
subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute because she is not a member of the Tribe and
never lived on PIIC land. Ex. H at 2, 3 (discussing Kristin’s position on appeal). In part,
the Tribal Court of Appeals based its conclusion on Kristin’s voluntary decision to enter
into a marriage with a Tribal member and her “numerous contacts with the [PIIC].” Id. at
5–7. The court further held that as a sovereign entity, the Tribe had the power to exercise
jurisdiction over its members’ domestic relations, and federal law did not preclude it from
deciding the case because one of the parties was a nonmember. Id. at 8–13. In part, applying
Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565–66 (1981), the PIIC Court of Appeals
affirmed the conclusion that the Tribal Court could exercise jurisdiction over Kristin even
though she is not a member of the Tribe because she entered a “consensual relationship”
with a PIIC member when she married Robert. Ex. H at 9–10.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings in the PIIC courts, Kristin filed
this action, alleging that “[t]he Tribal Court exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction.”
Compl., Count I. She asks this Court to issue an “Order finding that the Tribal Court Orders
concerning her are null and void as lacking both subject matter and personal jurisdiction,
6

and barring the Defendant from seeking to enforce them in tribal or state courts.” Id., Prayer
for Relief ¶ 1.6
DISCUSSION
Kristin moves for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. She argues that
federal law does not allow the PIIC Tribal Court to exercise jurisdiction over nonmembers
except in limited circumstances, none of which are present here. Pl.’s SJ Mem. 10. Second,
Plaintiff contends that she “did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the tribe under
due process to support tribal jurisdiction.” Id. at 19–23.
Robert asks this Court to dismiss this case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), for
four reasons. First, he asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are essentially an improper effort to
appeal the Hennepin County District Court’s decision to defer or transfer jurisdiction to
the tribe, and that attempt is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Pl.’s MTD Mem. 8–
12 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)), Doc. 16. Second, he argues that the Court should
dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because Kristin has failed to exhaust
her state court remedies. Id. at 12–14. Third, he argues that the Court should dismiss the
complaint for improper venue, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), pursuant to the “abstention
doctrine.” Id. at 14–19. And finally, he argues that the complaint should be dismissed
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join an indispensable party—namely PIIC—under
Rule 19. Id. at 19–26.

Kristin also asks this Court to “[r]emand[] the parties’ dissolution claims to state court.” Compl.,
Prayer for Relief ¶ 2. However, the Court notes that Kristin voluntarily dismissed her state court
proceeding, so even if the Court were to agree with her that the Tribal Court exceeded its
jurisdiction, there is no state court proceeding to which any dissolution claims could be remanded.
6

7

Having carefully reviewed the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to
show that she is entitled to summary judgment. Moreover, the undisputed material facts
show that the Tribal Courts properly exercised jurisdiction over the dissolution
proceedings. Consequently, the Court concludes that Defendant is entitled to summary
judgment and dismisses this action. Therefore, the Court also denies Defendant’s motion
to dismiss as moot.
I.

Legal Standard
“Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute of material fact

and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Collins v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 108
F.4th 1049, 1052 (8th Cir. 2024); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). District courts “should not weigh
the evidence, make credibility determinations, or attempt to discern the truth of any factual
issue.” Avenoso v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co., 19 F.4th 1020, 1024 (8th Cir. 2021). Facts
are material when their resolution would “affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing substantive law.” Ploen v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co., 691 F. Supp. 3d 1013, 1016–
17 (D. Minn. 2023) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). A
fact dispute is “‘genuine’ only if ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). In evaluating
whether summary judgment is appropriate, courts draw reasonable inferences from the
facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd.
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587–88 (1986); Irvin v. Richardson, 20 F.4th 1199
(8th Cir. 2021).

8

As indicated above, the parties in this case have agreed that there are no material
factual disputes and the issues to be decided in this case are “purely legal.” Doc. 11. Where
the moving party has had “notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court may
. . . grant summary judgment for a nonmovant.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). “The requirements
of Rule 56(f) are met when the losing party moves for summary judgment on the relevant
issue because that party obviously expects the district court to make a final ruling and
agrees to resolution of the issue in summary fashion.” Taylor Corp. v. XL Ins. Am., Inc.,
No. 22-cv-1151 (JRT/TNL), 2024 WL 453826, at *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 6, 2024) (cleaned up).
“By raising arguments in support of its own motion for summary judgment, the losing party
has had an opportunity to develop the record on that issue.” Id. (citing Johnson v. Bismarck
Pub. Sch. Dist., 949 F.2d 1000, 1005 (8th Cir. 1991); Barkley, Inc. v. Gabriel Bros., Inc.,
829 F.3d 1030, 1041 (8th Cir. 2016)).
II.

Analysis
A. This Court’s Jurisdiction
Plaintiff argues that the Tribal Courts lacked jurisdiction over her because she is not

a member of the tribe and never resided on the reservation, including during the parties’
marriage. First, the Court agrees with Kristin’s assertion that this case raises a federal
question that falls within the Court’s own subject matter jurisdiction. As the Supreme Court
has explained, “whether a tribal court has adjudicative authority over nonmembers is a
federal question,” and if a tribal court “is found to lack such jurisdiction, any judgment as
to the nonmember is necessarily null and void.” Plains Comm. Bank v. Long Family Land
and Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316, 324 (2008); Attorney’s Process and Investigation Servs., Inc.
9

v. Sac & Fox Tribe of Miss. In Iowa, 609 F.3d 927, 936 (8th Cir. 2010); Harder v. Roberts,
No. 12-cv-663 (MJD/JJK), 2013 WL 5357173, at *1 (D. Minn. Sept. 24, 2013).7
Opposing the summary judgment motion, Defendant does not meaningfully dispute
that the Court has the authority to adjudicate whether the PIIC courts had jurisdiction over
a nonmember. He raises several arguments that track those he made in support of his
motion to dismiss. Only two merit further comment.
Defendant suggests that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this dispute under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Plaintiff is really seeking to use this proceeding as an
appeal of the Hennepin County District Court’s decision to defer jurisdiction to the Tribe.
“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that, with the exception of habeas corpus
petitions, lower federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to state court
judgments.” Kvalvog v. Park Christian Sch., Inc., 66 F.4th 1147, 1152 (8th Cir. 2023). On
its face, Kristin’s complaint challenges only the scope of the tribal court’s jurisdiction
under federal law. It is not apparent from the record that the Hennepin County District
Court even made a conclusion on that issue. The underlying order deferring jurisdiction to
the tribal authorities was concerned with application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction
and Enforcement Act. The parties point to no case illuminating how the Rooker-Feldman

The Harder court ultimately issued a declaratory judgment granting the nonmember plaintiff’s
claim that the PIIC Tribal Court had issued a judgment and decree in a tribal dissolution proceeding
without subject matter jurisdiction and without personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff. 2013 WL
5357173, at *7 (Order ¶ 4). However, the court reached that conclusion not because it determined
that such jurisdiction could never be exercised, but as a sanction for the defendant’s willful and
repeated violations of court orders requiring her to personally appear. Id. at *3–6. Therefore,
Harder does not inform the analysis the Court must conduct in this case.
7

10

doctrine applies to a situation comparable to this, and the Court finds it unnecessary to
resolve this thorny issue here in light of its ruling on other issues.
Next, Robert argues that the Court should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction
because Kristin can now seeks review of the Hennepin County Court’s last decision in the
Minnesota Court of Appeals. Def.’s SJ Opp’n 4–9, Doc. 25. This argument rests on the
somewhat dubious proposition that now that the tribal proceedings are concluded, Kristin
could, in fact, appeal some final decision of the Hennepin County District Court to the
Minnesota Court of Appeals. Because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her state court
dissolution proceeding nearly two years ago, taking an appeal now seems unlikely.
In sum, the Court finds that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim
that the Tribal Courts acted without jurisdiction and declines to abstain from deciding the
issue.
B. The Montana Exceptions
The central question raised by this case is whether the Tribal Court had authority to
adjudicate a marriage dissolution proceeding where one of the parties to the marriage is a
nonmember who does not reside on tribal land. Based on the undisputed facts here, the
Court concludes that it does.
In Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), the Supreme Court explored the
limits of tribal authority to regulate the conduct of nonmembers. See also Attorney’s
Process, 609 F.3d at 935 (“The federal principles which govern tribal civil jurisdiction over
nonmembers were set out in Montana v. United States, and that decision remains the
pathmarking case on the subject.”) (cleaned up). As the Eighth Circuit has explained, “[i]n
11

Montana, the Supreme Court concluded that the Crow Tribe lacked the power to prohibit
hunting and fishing by nonmembers on non-Indian fee land within its reservation because
‘exercise of tribal power beyond what is necessary to protect tribal self-government or to
control internal relations is inconsistent with the dependent status of the tribes.’” Id. at 935
(quoting Montana, 450 U.S. at 564). Therefore, although tribes retain considerable inherent
sovereign powers, those powers generally “do not extend to the activities of nonmembers
of the tribe.” Id. (quotation omitted).8
But the general rule that tribes may not regulate nonmembers on non-Indian fee land
has important exceptions. Indeed, “‘Indian tribes retain inherent sovereign power to
exercise some forms of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reservations, even on
non-Indian fee lands.’” Id. at 935–36 (quoting Montana, 450 U.S. at 565). The Supreme
Court recognized two exceptions in Montana that allow tribes to regulate “nonmember
conduct.” Id. at 936. They are commonly referred to as the Montana exceptions. They “are
rooted in the tribes’ inherent power to protect certain sovereign interests,” including tribes’
rights “to make their own laws and be governed by them.” Id. (quotations omitted).

Here, neither party contends that any “federal statute or treaty specifically provides the Tribal
Court with jurisdiction over the claims at issue in this case; therefore the Tribal Court’s jurisdiction
must arise from its ‘retained or inherent sovereignty.’” Belcourt Pub. Sch. Dist., 786 F.3d at 657
(quoting Atkinson Trading Co., Inc. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645, 649–50 (2001)).
8

12

The first Montana exception is at issue here.9 It provides that “[a] tribe may regulate,
through taxation, licensing, or other means, the activities of nonmembers who enter
consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing,
contracts, leases, or other arrangements.” 450 U.S. at 565. The scope of a tribal court’s
jurisdiction under this exception is the same whether the tribe attempts to regulate
nonmember conduct through legislation or through a ruling of a tribal court. Belcourt Pub.
Sch. Dist. v. Davis, 786 F.3d 653, 657 n.3 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing Strate v. A-1 Contractors,
520 U.S. 438, 453 (1997)). Based on the first Montana exception, tribes have “power over
a nonmember [when] ‘the nonmember enters tribal lands or conducts business with the
tribe.’” Turpen v. Muckleshoot Tribal Court, No. C22-0496-JCC, 2023 WL 4492250, at *3
(W.D. Wash. July 12, 2023) (quoting Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 142
(1982)). “And tribal jurisdiction ‘depends on what non-Indians ‘reasonably’ should
‘anticipate’ from their dealings with a tribe or tribal members on a reservation.’” Id.
(quoting Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v. LaRance, 642 F.3d 802, 817 (9th
Cir. 2011)).
It is undisputed on this record that Kristin entered a “consensual relationship” with
a member of the PIIC Tribe through a “contract” or “other arrangement”—namely her
marriage to Robert. And the record amply demonstrates that she could reasonably

The second Montana exception provides that a tribe “retain[s] inherent power to exercise civil
authority over the conduct of non-Indians on fee lands within its reservation when that conduct
threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health
and welfare of the tribe.” 450 U.S. at 566. Neither party argues that this exception is applicable
here.
9

13

anticipate the exercise of tribal jurisdiction over the dissolution of that relationship
according to the PIIC’s laws.
Although Plaintiff argues that her “off-reservation acts of marrying and having
children with a non-resident member do not” fall under the first Montana exception (Pl.’s
Summ. J. Mem. 14–15, 18, Doc. 21), the Court disagrees. Plaintiff voluntarily entered a
marriage with Defendant, a member of the PIIC. Although the couple did not live on the
tribal land, throughout their marriage, the couple’s financial needs were primarily met
through the per capita payments Defendant received from the Tribe. In addition, the
couple’s children received health and dental insurance coverage through the Tribe. Ex. G.
¶ 24 (“Father shall continue to maintain health and dental insurance coverage for the minor
children through the Prairie Island Mdewakanton Dakota Community for the benefit of the
minor children.”). Kristin and Robert themselves also received medical and dental
insurance coverage from the Tribe. Ex. A ¶ 11 (“Petitioner [and] Respondent . . . have been
provided free medical and dental insurance coverage from the Prairie Island Mdewakanton
Dakota Community.”). And during the marriage, Kristin “attended pow wows with the
minor children.” Id. ¶ 12. Based on this record, the Court finds that Plaintiff entered a
consensual relationship with Defendant, a member of the Tribe, and Plaintiff could
reasonably anticipate from her dealings with Defendant and the tribe that the Tribal Court
could exercise jurisdiction over their marriage dissolution.
The Court’s conclusion finds support in the caselaw. The parties point to no binding
authority addressing the specific issue presented here—whether the first Montana
exception allows a tribal court to exercise jurisdiction over a nonmember in a marriage
14

dissolution proceeding when the nonmember does not live on reservation land. And there
are few federal appellate decisions that deal with closely analogous situations. But the
decisions that each side references are consistent with the Court’s conclusion that the Tribal
Court’s exercise of jurisdiction was proper.
First, Plaintiff points to the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that a tribal court had
jurisdiction over a “marriage dissolution action between an Indian plaintiff and a nonIndian defendant residing on the reservation.” Sanders v. Robinson, 864 F.2d 630, 634 (9th
Cir. 1988). In reaching that conclusion, the Sanders court observed that in Montana, the
Supreme Court referred to retention of civil jurisdiction over nonmembers on reservation
land. Id. at 633 (“To be sure, Indian tribes retain inherent sovereign power to exercise some
forms of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reservations, even on non-Indian fee
lands.” (quoting Montana, 450 U.S. at 565)) (emphasis added in Sanders); see also id.
(discussing Indian law treatises that assumed “tribal courts would have at least concurrent
jurisdiction in divorce cases involving an Indian plaintiff non-Indian defendant, where the
non-Indian defendant resided on the reservation during the marriage”) (citing W. Canby,
American Indian Law 146 (1981); F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 342 (1982
ed.)).
Plaintiff reads Sanders to mean that a tribal court cannot exercise jurisdiction over
a proceeding to dissolve a marriage between a nonmember and a member who reside off
the reservation. But the Court is not persuaded for at least two reasons. First, Sanders
simply does not say that. Second, it is noteworthy that the focus in both Sanders and
Montana was on the limits of tribal court authority over nonmembers on reservation land.
15

The dispute in Montana involved the scope of tribal authority to regulate the conduct of
nonmembers on land within the reservation. And similarly, the question of the tribal court’s
authority at issue in Sanders involved a dispute with a nonmember who resided within the
reservation. Residing within a reservation is only one way the first Montana exception
might be invoked. As a result, Sanders does not explore the extent of tribal court
jurisdiction over a nonmember who does not reside on tribal land, but has entered into a
consensual relationship with a member of a tribe.
Plaintiff next cites Hornell Brewing Co. v. Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court, 133 F.3d
1087 (8th Cir. 1998) for the proposition that “[n]either Montana nor its progeny purports
to allow Indian tribes to exercise civil jurisdiction over the activities or conduct of nonIndians occurring outside their reservations.” Id. at 1091. Plaintiff suggests that this is
consistent with her position that Montana’s first exception regarding consensual
relationships cannot apply to a situation where the family resided off the reservation. But
Plaintiff’s reliance on Hornell Brewing is likewise misplaced. Hornell Brewing did not
involve application of the first Montana exception at all. Id. at 1093 (indicating that the
parties did not invoke the first Montana exception and stating that “the primary issue the
parties raise on appeal relates to Montana’s second exception”).
The Court’s conclusion that a tribal court can exercise jurisdiction over dissolution
proceedings between a member and a nonmember even when the nonmember resides off
the reservation finds support in a district court case from the Western District of
Washington. Turpen, 2023 WL 4492250, at *3. In Turpen, the court found that a tribal
court had jurisdiction over the couple’s dissolution proceeding because the plaintiff entered
16

a consensual relationship with a tribal member vis-à-vis their marriage. Id. Although the
couple lived on the Muckleshoot Reservation before they were married, they later moved
to a home that was not on reservation land. Id. And the Turpen court explained that the
nonmember plaintiff had received financial support from the tribe as a result of that
marriage, “including an income-based grant for the down payment and loan assistance for
the mortgage, which provided that the Tribe would subsidize their housing, so long as [the
tribal member] lived there.” Id. In light of this consensual relationship, the Turpen court
rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the first “Montana [exception] is inapplicable because
the parties did not reside on the reservation.” Id. As described above, the facts before this
Court regarding the Tix family’s relationship with the Tribe support PIIC’s exercise of
jurisdiction at least as much as those before the Turpen court.
In sum, this Court concludes that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law on Plaintiff’s claims that the Tribal Court’s orders were null and void because the
Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction over the tribal dissolution proceeding.
C. Personal Jurisdiction
Finally, Plaintiff argues that she “did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the
tribe under due process to support tribal jurisdiction.” Pl.’s Summ. J. Mem. 19. In their
briefing, neither party points to controlling precedent that clearly illustrates how a federal
court should determine whether a tribal court presiding over dissolution proceedings had
personal jurisdiction over a nonmember. And the Eighth Circuit has noted that the
Montana exceptions concern a tribal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, rather than

17

personal jurisdiction, suggesting a separate analysis might be required. Attorney’s Process,
609 F.3d 927, 937 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 367 n.8 (2001)).
The exact contours of the personal-jurisdiction issue Plaintiff raises are not entirely
clear. Plaintiff begins with the insistence that, during the tribal court proceedings, she
“never relied on the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause to limit tribal court jurisdiction
over her.” She asserts that the appropriate reference point for her argument is the Indian
Civil Rights Act. Pl.’s Summ. J. Mem. 20–21 (citing 25 U.S.C. § 1302). This observation
appears to be a response to the PIIC Court of Appeals’ discussion of how it determines the
issue of personal jurisdiction: first, it examines whether tribal law allows the Tribal Court
to exercise authority over a nonresident, nonmember who never resided on the reservation,
if so, it considers whether “the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause permits such reach
of authority.” Ex. H at 3. Even if Plaintiff is correct that she never argued before the PIIC
courts that the U.S. Constitution was applicable to the Tribe, she offers no argument as to
why that matters. What’s more, Plaintiff ignores the fact that the PIIC Court of Appeals
identified the very same ICRA provision that she now references. Ex. H at 4 (citing 25
U.S.C. § 1302(a)(8)).10 Whatever this criticism of the Tribal Courts’ assessment of the
scope of their authority over Plaintiff is intended to convey, it presents no basis for
concluding that the Tribal Courts’ judgments are void for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Indian Civil Rights Act provides: “No Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government
shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws or deprive any
person of liberty or property without due process of law.” 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(8).
10

18

In any event, Plaintiff appears to agree that her personal-jurisdiction argument
should be determined by reference to traditional considerations of due process, whether
those considerations stem from the U.S. Constitution or the Indian Civil Rights Act. Pl.’s
Summ. J. Mem. 20–21 (citing ICRA and asserting that “due process applies”). At least one
court has found, generally, that “[t]o exercise civil authority over a defendant, a tribal court
must have both personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.” Water Wheel Camp,
642 F.3d at 819 (citing 18 William Reade Fletcher, Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of
Corporations § 8644.50 (rev.perm.ed. 2006)). The Ninth Circuit has also indicated that the
“‘consensual relationship’ analysis under Montana resembles the Court’s Due Process
Clause analysis for purposes of personal jurisdiction,” Smith v. Salish Kootenai Coll., 434
F.3d 1127, 1138 (9th Cir. 2006), and there is not a “more rigorous test of personal
jurisdiction applicable to tribal courts,” Allstate Indem. Co. v. Stump, 191 F.3d 1071, 1075–
76 (9th Cir. 1999).
The Court finds no flaw in the Tribal Courts’ determinations that they had the
authority to adjudicate the dissolution proceeding Defendant filed, even though Plaintiff
was a nonmember who did not live on PIIC land. In rejecting Plaintiff’s argument, the PIIC
Court of Appeals first found that the relevant provisions of the PIIC’s Community Courts
Ordinance allowed the Tribal Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff even
though she lived outside the exterior boundaries of the reservation. Second, the Court of
Appeals found no support for Plaintiff’s suggestion that there had been anything unfairly
prejudicial about the way the Tribal Court’s proceedings were conducted, concluding that
she was provided proper notice and had the opportunity to be heard during a four-day trial,
19

after which the court issued a 65-page order with detailed findings and conclusions. Ex. H
at 5.
Third, the Court of Appeals examined the number and nature of Plaintiff’s contacts
with the PIIC and found them sufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
Here, [Kristin] had numerous contacts with the [PIIC], listed
in the Community Court’s opinions.[] She married a
Community member. Her children with [Robert] are
Community members. The family derived their principal
income and their assets from per capita payments that [Robert]
received from the Community. Both parties and their children
received health insurance from the Community. [Kristin]
supported the children’s connections with the Community by
attending cultural events in the Community with the children.
....
Not only are [Kristin’s] contacts with [the Tribe] numerous,
but they are also specifically tied to the Community’s interests
in regulating the subjects of the dissolution action. It is selfevident that the Community has an interest in the domestic
relations of its members. The Community also has vital
interests in the health, safety, education, and cultural growth of
the parties’ children. Since the parties’ income and assets
primarily come from the Community’s per capita payments,
the Community has an interest in the disposition of these
monies.
....
Id. at 5–6 (footnote omitted).11
In addition, the PIIC Court of Appeals noted that having Plaintiff participate in the
Tribal Court proceeding was not significantly burdensome to Plaintiff because she lived
within Minnesota and her residence was less than 50 miles from the court. Id. at 6. It also

The PIIC Court of Appeals observed that Plaintiff did not challenge any of the Tribal Court’s
findings of fact from the order denying the motion to dismiss or in the final order for judgment.
Ex. H. at 5 n.5.
11

20

observed that the Hennepin County District Court had acknowledged the Tribal Court’s
“concurrent jurisdiction over all aspects of the dissolution.” Id. And the Court of Appeals
found additional support for the exercise of personal jurisdiction as follows:
The record establishes the Community’s interests in the
subjects of the dissolution in other ways. Prairie Island Family
Services filed a petition in the Community Court for children
in need of protection and assisted the parties in negotiating a
parenting time schedule. The children’s paternal grandfather
also filed a petition in the Community Court to secure
grandparenting time with the children.
Ex. H at 6.
Finally, although the PIIC Court of Appeals did not repeat this analysis, the Tribal
Court made the following observations when it issued its Order denying Plaintiff’s motion
to dismiss the tribal proceedings:
The Mother contends that the exercise of jurisdiction over a
dissolution proceeding involving a non-domiciled and nonmember of the Community violates the due process provisions
of the Indian Civil Rights Act because a tribal court cannot
exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a dissolution
proceeding involving a non-domiciliary unless he has
sufficient contacts with the Community to warrant satisfy the
“minimum contacts” standard of International Shoe. This
Court rejects the argument because it is contrary to United
States Supreme Court precedents. The general rule is that a
Court has in rem jurisdiction to dissolve the bonds of
matrimony provided it has appropriate jurisdiction over one of
the parties to that marriage. As the United States Supreme
Court held in Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942)
a court need not have personal jurisdiction over a Defendant in
a dissolution proceeding in order to terminate the marital
relationship. See also Mahoney v. Mahoney, 433 NW2d 315
(Minn. App. 1988)[.] A Court does, however, have to have
personal jurisdiction over a Defendant in order to direct him to
pay alimony or attorney’s fees, or to determine his rights to

21

marital property not situated within the forum court’s
jurisdiction not acquired with per capita benefits.
Ex. B at 6.
Based on a thorough review of the decisions of the trial and appellate proceedings
in the Tribal Courts and the information available in this record, the Court cannot conclude
that the Tribal Courts’ conclusions regarding personal jurisdiction were erroneous or
deprived Plaintiff of due process of law. Indeed, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s contacts
were sufficient to support the Tribal Court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ only
argument here is that the PIIC Court of Appeals erred because it insufficiently explained
how the tribal dissolution proceeding arose out of or related to Plaintiff’s contacts with the
forum because she did nothing more than passively receive per capita payments from the
Tribe. Pl.’s Summ. J. Mem. 23. The foregoing summary of the Tribal Courts’ decisions
illustrates the flaw in Plaintiff’s framing, and the Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument as
lacking support.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) is DENIED;

2.

Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s claim that

the “Tribal Court exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction,” Compl. (Count I), and
Plaintiff is not entitled to the injunctive, declaratory, or equitable relief requested in her
pleading.
3.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

22

4.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 14) is DENIED

AS MOOT.
Let Judgment be entered accordingly.

Date: November 26, 2024

s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge

23