Did land identified for possible Maine Indian Territory lose eligibility when its 1980 owner sold it to someone else?

Plain-English summary

In 1987, the Maine Attorney General concluded that land identified in the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act did not lose eligibility for inclusion in Indian Territory merely because the owner named in the 1980 statute later sold it.

The Legislature used the names of the 1980 owners to identify particular parcels without writing lengthy metes-and-bounds descriptions. The names did not freeze ownership, restrict later sales, or make continued ownership by the named person a condition of eligibility.

If the Passamaquoddy Tribe or Penobscot Nation later purchased an identified parcel on the open market, the parcel could be included in Indian Territory. Changes in ownership did not change the statutory parcel boundaries.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

For tribal governments in 1987

The opinion preserved eligibility of the statutorily identified parcels despite intervening private transfers. Later acquisition on the open market could still bring the parcel into Indian Territory.

For landowners in 1987

Eligibility under section 6205 did not restrict the named 1980 owner's ability to sell the land to another person.

For title examiners and commission officials in 1987

The statutory owner names functioned as parcel identifiers. The relevant boundaries were those of the lands referenced in 1980, not the changing ownership interests.

Common questions

Q: Did a sale by the owner named in the statute end the parcel's eligibility?
A: No. The opinion said the name identified the land rather than creating an ongoing ownership condition.

Q: Did the settlement law prevent the named owners from selling?
A: No. The opinion said designation as eligible imposed no restriction on alienation.

Q: When would an eligible parcel become part of Indian Territory?
A: The opinion said inclusion would occur if the Passamaquoddy Tribe or Penobscot Nation later purchased the identified parcel on the open market.

Q: Did later ownership changes alter the statutory boundaries?
A: No. The boundaries remained those of the lands identified by the Legislature in 1980.

Background and statutory framework

The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act implemented the federal 1980 settlement and identified land eligible for acquisition by the Passamaquoddy Tribe or Penobscot Nation. Section 6205 described the parcels by reference to their owners at enactment.

The opinion read those owner references as a practical identification method, not a substantive restriction tied to continued ownership.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• 30 M.R.S.A. § 6201, et seq.
• 30 M.R.S.A. § 6205(1)(B)
• 25 U.S.C.A. § 1721, et seq.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
• Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/1987/ag_19870803b.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

]4.\IE~ E. TIER'E\
87-13
ATTORNEY GE"'-ERAL

(
S1ATE OF !\14.J'liE
DEPARnl['T qr THE ATTOR,H GE"ER..t
STA TE HO! SE STA TJO', 6
AlGlSTA. ,HI'[ 0-1333

August 3, 1987

John G. Melrose
Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission
P.O. Box 87
Hallowell, Maine 04347
Dear Mr. Melrose:
I am writing in response to your recent inquiry concerning the identification of lands eligible for inclusion within the "Indian Territory" of the State pursuant to Section 6205 of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, 30 M.R.S.A. § 6201, et seq. Specifically, you ask whether the transfer of land by one of the owners enumerated in Section 6205 would result in the removal of that land from eligibility to be included in "Indian ( Territory," if it should later be purchased by either the Passamaquoddy Tribe or Penobscot Nation. For the reasons which follow, it is the Opinion of this Department that the enumeration of owners in Section 6205 was for purposes of identification of the lands in question only, and the transfer of land by any of them to persons not enumerated would not render such land ineligible for inclusion in "Indian Territory."
The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act was enacted in 1980 to implement the federal Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980, 25 U.S.C.A. § 1721, et seq. Included among its provisions was one designating certain areas of land in Maine as eligible for purchase by either the Passamaquoddy Tribe or Penobscot Nation. This land is identified in the statute by reference to its owners at the time of the enactment for the Act. 30 M.R.S.A. § 6205(1)(B) (Passamaquoddy Tribe) and (2)(B) (Penobscot Nation). Since the time of the enactment of the Act, however, some of this land has been transferred to other persons. For example, you indicate that the lands of the Diamond International Corporation in the Town of Argyle enumerated as part of the land set aside for potential inclusion in the Passamaquoddy Indian Territory have been transferred to another owner. Your question, therefore, is whether such a transfer removes the land in question from eligibility to be included in "Indian Territory." The legislative history of the provision in question is silent on the point, but there is nonetheless little doubt that the Legislature did not intend by its use of the names of the owners of the lands in question in 1980 that the transfer of land by one of these owners should remove it from eligibility for inclusion in "Indian Territory." Rather, the Legislature's purpose in utilizing the names of the owners in the statute was simply to identify, without an elaborate provision setting forth the metes and bounds of the parcels in question, the lands to which the Act applied. In this regard, it should be remembered that the designation of a particular parcel of land as eligible for inclusion in "Indian Territory" imposes no restriction on its alienation; the only significance of a parcel's enumeration in Section 6205 is that if the Penobscot Nation or Passamaquoddy Tribe should eventually purchase it on the open market, it would be included in "Indian Territory." Thus, the Legislature did not intend that the owners of the parcels in question in 1980 be restricted from transferring the lands elsewhere. Rather, by identifying the lands by owners, it intended only to fix the identity of the parcels in question, without regard to actual ownership.

( It thus appears clear that the boundaries of "Indian Territory" were established by the Legislature in 1980 to be the boundaries of the lands referred to in Section 6205. Any additions or deletions in the ownership interests of the landowners at the time, therefore, would not affect the boundaries of "Indian Territory."
I hope the foregoing responds to your question. Please feel free to reinquire if further clarification is necessary.
Afr1erely,
Gil{M__
I
7
L-.

JAMES E. TIERNEY lJttorney General
JET/ec cc: Jennifer Wriggins, Esq.
Counsel to the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation