The Tribe argues that the purported waivers of sovereign immunity and tribal court jurisdiction in the settlement agreement are invalid because they were not supported by aresolution of the Tribe’s Board of Directors as required under § 44.105 and § 44.109 of theTribe’s Code. In exceptionally frustrating language, the appellate court rejected the argument on its face: However, the Tribe argued in the case that the tribal official that signed the contract and the settlement did not have authority to do so, negating the waiver. But after the Tribe allegedly breached the contract, the parties entered into a settlement, seemingly incorporating the original waiver. The facts appear to be, in a nutshell, that Sault Tribe entered into a contract (relating to its purchase a parking garage near Greektown, which now has new owners) in which it purported to waive immunity.
Here is the published opinion: Michigan COA Opinion. Interesting, and potential awful, case - Bates Associates LLC v.
