No. 97-108 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1997 JOE R. LEE and FLOIE N. LEE,

v. TETON COUNTY,

APPEAL FROM: Plaintiffs and Appellants,

Defendant and Respondent. 

# PH
__,PO (JC] 

### ? I 1 

## (iliI

; i ,"' '1'1 , ,,-.,,;;,(,' ,,__**,,'J'~i**t Jk**~"'I;~H1** €IF.**9I1Pm~ME ceU~"**  SlAn: fii'**Mhi\ll:4,'11~** , District Court ofthe Ninth Judicial District, In and for the County ofTeton, Honorable Marc G. Buyske, Judge Presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: ForAppellants: Joe R. Lee (pro se), Choteau, Montana For Respondent: Russell R. Andrews, County Attorney, Choteau, Montana Kenneth Olson, Great Falls, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: October 9, 1997 Decided: October 21, 1997 Filed:ChiefJustice 

### 1. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion ofthe Court. Pursuantto SectionI, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 OperatingRules, the following decision shall notbe cited as precedent and shall be publishedby its filing as
a public document with the Clerk ofthe Supreme Court and by a report ofits result to State Reporter Publishing Company and West Group. Joe and Floie Lee appeal from the order ofthe Ninth Judicial District Court, Teton County, dismissing their complaint. We affirm. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the court abused its discretion when it dismissed the Lees' complaint. BACKGROUND In 1989, the Lees filed a complaint, Teton County Cause No. 89-DV-005, to restrain Teton County from maintaining a road abutting land in which they held a leasehold interest. On October4, 1993, the Lees moved the District Court to stay Cause No. 89-DV-005 "until the Montana Supreme Court decides whether a certain option on the property in question is enforceable." In Matter ofEstate ofPelzman (1993),261 Mont. 461,863 P.2d 1019, we ruled that Joe Lee, plaintiffand appellantherein, did nothave any claim to purchasethe property which abuts the road at issue in this case. On November 19, 1996, the District Court dismissed the Lees' complaint in the present action with prejudice because ofthe motion to stay and a

2stipulation. The Lees moved the court to reconsider. The motion was denied on December 17, 1996. The Lees appeal from that order. DISCUSSION Our standard ofreview in discretionary trial court rulings is whether the court abused its discretion. Steer, Inc. v. Department ofRevenue (1990), 245 Mont. 470, 475, 803 P.2d 601,604. The Lees argue on appeal that the dismissal oftheir complaint is improperbecause ofan alleged interest in the property at issue heldby third party, Fred Pelzman, Jr. The Lees have no standing to maintain their complaint in Fred Pelzman's name. We conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the Lees' complaint. Rule 32 ofthe Montana Rules ofAppellate Procedure provides: Ifthe supreme court is satisfied from the record and the presentation ofthe appeal in a civil case that the same was taken without substantial orreasonable grounds, such damages may be assessed on determination thereofas under the circumstances are deemed proper. Because the Lees appealed this case without substantial or reasonable grounds and because theirpro se briefdoes not set forth legal authority in support oftheir position as requiredby Rule 23(4), M.R.App.P., we award Teton County its attorney fees and costs of this appeal. The courts ofthis state should not be burdened with a frivolous appeal nor should the public officials and taxpayers ofTeton County have to fund it.

3Affirmed andremanded for a determination bythe District Court ofattorney fees and costs.

We concur:

4