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 (ili I 

; i ,"' '1'1 , ,,-.,,;;,(,' ,, __ ,,'J'~i t Jk 

~"'I;~H1 €IF. 9I1Pm~ME ceU~" SlAn: fii' Mhi\ll:4,'11~ , 

District Court of the Ninth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Teton, 

Honorable Marc G. Buyske, Judge Presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellants: 

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: 
Chief Justice 1. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3( c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Operating Rules, 

the following decision shall not be cited as precedent and shall be published by its filing as 

a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result to State 

Reporter Publishing Company and West Group. 

Joe and Floie Lee appeal from the order of the 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 October 4, 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 of Estate ofPelzman (1993),261 Mont. 461,863 P.2d 1019, we ruled that 

Joe Lee, plaintiff and appellant herein, did not have any claim to purchase the 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 of the motion to stay and a 

2 
stipulation. The Lees moved the court to reconsider. The motion was denied on December 

17, 1996. The Lees appeal from that order. 

DISCUSSION 

Our standard of review in discretionary trial court rulings is whether the court abused 

its discretion. Steer, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1990), 245 Mont. 470, 475, 803 P.2d 

601,604. 

The Lees argue on appeal that the dismissal of their complaint is improper because 

of an alleged interest in the property at issue held by 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 of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure provides: 

If the supreme court is satisfied from the record and the presentation of the 

appeal in a civil case that the same was taken without substantial or reasonable 

grounds, such damages may be assessed on determination thereof as under the 

circumstances are deemed proper. 

Because the Lees appealed this case without substantial or reasonable grounds and 

because their pro se brief does not set forth legal authority in support of their position as 

required by Rule 23(4), M.R.App.P., we award Teton County its attorney fees and costs of 

this appeal. The courts of this state should not be burdened with a frivolous appeal nor 

should the public officials and taxpayers of Teton County have to fund it. 

3 
Affirmed and remanded for a determination by the District Court of attorney fees and 

costs. 

We concur: 

4