## Facts

- Joyce James, Darlene Ahownewa, and Lorna Quamahongnewa (the sisters) were enrolled members of the Hopi Tribe, lived on the Hopi Reservation, and resided in or near the Village of Hotevilla in Arizona.
- Ruth Smith, also an enrolled Hopi tribal member, was the daughter of Martha Bolehongna; the sisters were Bolehongna’s granddaughters through their mother, Mollie Honeyestewa (Smith’s sister).
- Smith married a member of the Yavapai-Apache Tribe and moved away from the Hopi Reservation to the Yavapai-Apache Reservation.
- After Bolehongna died, a dispute arose over a tract of farming land on the Hopi Reservation in Hotevilla that included orchards and bean fields.
- Smith claimed the land belonged to her based on an oral transfer by her father, described as an oral “will” or gift.
- The sisters claimed the right to the land under Hopi tradition providing for matrilineal passage of family farmland, asserting that the land passed to their mother and then to them.
- The conflict escalated after Smith and her son placed metal fencing stakes and planted fruit trees on the tract, which the sisters alleged interfered with their use of the land and violated village norms.
- The sisters first sought help from Hotevilla village authorities; the matter was then brought to Hopi Tribal Court.
- The sisters filed in Hopi Tribal Court seeking a preliminary injunction and later pursued a quiet-title remedy (exclusive use and occupancy). Smith answered and filed a cross-claim seeking the same relief in her favor.
- The tribal court held a fact-finding hearing and then held a separate hearing where the parties presented evidence about the village’s customs and traditions regarding land tenure and inheritance; the tribal court ruled for the sisters.
- Smith appealed. The sisters moved to dismiss the appeal because Smith filed her appellate brief late, but the Hopi Appellate Court considered whether to accept the late brief under its rules.

## Issues

1. Whether the Hopi Appellate Court should dismiss the appeal because Smith filed her appellate brief late, or instead accept the brief and reach the merits.
2. Whether the tribal court committed reversible error by holding a fact-finding hearing before holding a hearing focused on village customs and traditions in a customary land dispute.
3. Whether the tribal court’s decision granting the sisters exclusive use and occupancy of the Hotevilla farmland, and rejecting Smith’s claim based on an alleged oral transfer from her father, should be affirmed.

## Decision

- The Hopi Appellate Court denied the sisters’ motion to dismiss and exercised its discretion under the applicable appellate rule to accept Smith’s late brief.
- On the merits, the Hopi Appellate Court affirmed the tribal court’s judgment granting the sisters exclusive use and occupancy of the disputed farmland.
- The court rejected Smith’s argument that the tribal court failed to adequately consider Hopi customary law merely because it heard fact testimony before receiving evidence on customs and traditions.

## Legal Principles

- An appellate court may have discretion under court rules to accept late appellate briefs and proceed to decide an appeal on the merits rather than dismissing it.
- In disputes over Hopi village farmland, the tribal court may determine rights of use and occupancy by receiving evidence of village customs and traditions and applying that customary law to the parties’ claims.
- A trial court may structure proceedings by taking general fact evidence first and then receiving evidence on customary law in a later hearing; this sequencing, by itself, does not show that customary law was ignored.
- Appellate review generally defers to the trial court’s resolution of disputed facts and its evaluation of witness credibility, including testimony about village customs, absent a showing of reversible error.
- In applying Hopi tradition concerning family farmland, evidence tied to matrilineal succession and continued community connection may support awarding exclusive use and occupancy to descendants through the maternal line over a competing claim based on an asserted oral transfer.

## Conclusion

The Hopi Appellate Court refused to dismiss Smith’s appeal for a late-filed brief, then affirmed the tribal court’s decision awarding Joyce James and her sisters exclusive use and occupancy of Hotevilla farmland based on evidence of village customs and traditions, rejecting Smith’s competing claim grounded on an alleged oral transfer from her father and her argument that the trial court’s hearing sequence showed inadequate consideration of customary law.


Smith v. James, 2 Am. Tribal Law 319 (1999)