Court Opinion

ID: 9364004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-18 01:05:31.096338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:35.357436
License: Public Domain

01/17/2023

                                           DA 22-0225
                                                                                            Case Number: DA 22-0225

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                           2023 MT 11N

PETER GRIGG,

               Petitioner and Appellant,

         v.

TIFFANEY GRIGG,

               Respondent and Appellee.

APPEAL FROM:           District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
                       In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV-22-073(C)
                       Honorable Heidi J. Ulbricht, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

                For Appellant:

                       Peter Grigg, Self-represented, Kalispell, Montana

                For Appellee:

                       Peter F. Carroll, Attorney at Law, Kalispell, Montana

                                                    Submitted on Briefs: December 7, 2022

                                                                Decided: January 17, 2023

Filed:

                       __________________________________________
                                         Clerk
Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not

serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this

Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana

Reports.

¶2     This is another of several appeals brought by Peter Grigg (Peter). Peter appeals

from the April 25, 2022 Order to Dismiss of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead

County, dismissing Peter’s Petition for Restitution & Compensation – Stress & Mental

Anguish. We affirm.

¶3     After the district court issued a Decree of Dissolution in Lincoln County Cause No.

DR-20-079, but before the cause was finalized (the issue of the award of attorney’s fees

and costs remained), Peter filed his Petition for Restitution & Compensation – Stress &

Mental Anguish in this case. In his Petition, Peter asserted a variety of slights and harms

stemming from his marriage to Tiffaney Grigg (Tiffaney)—among them marriage by

deception; presentation of fraudulent and false evidence by Tiffaney in the dissolution case;

and the failure of Tiffaney to disclose marriages, aliases, and debts and income/assets.

Tiffaney then sought dismissal of the petition asserting the claims were barred as a matter

of law, that other claims were improperly pled, and that others were barred by the doctrine

of res judicata. Tiffaney attached exhibits from the Lincoln County case to her motion to

dismiss. The District Court properly converted Tiffaney’s motion to a motion for summary

                                             2
judgment and permitted Tiffaney opportunity to supplement her motion and Peter

opportunity to respond. Tiffaney rested on her initial pleading. Peter failed to timely

respond. On April 25, 2022, the District Court dismissed Peter’s petition.

¶4     We review a district court’s grant or denial of a motion to dismiss as a matter of law

to determine if the court’s interpretation of law is correct. Associated Press v. Usher, 2022

MT 24, ¶ 9, 407 Mont. 290, 503 P.3d 1086. “When a district court converts a motion to

dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, we use the same [de novo] standard of review

applied to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment.” Day v. CTA, Inc., 2014

MT 119, ¶ 6, 375 Mont. 79, 324 P.3d 1205.

¶5     M. R. App. P. 12 requires the appellant set forth “the contentions of the appellant

with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the

authorities, statutes, and pages of the record relied on[.]” M. R. App. P. 12(1)(g). Peter

has utterly failed in this regard. Peter reasserts and rehashes his perceived grievances with

Tiffaney and with the processes and determinations of the district court in the dissolution

action. He fails to present argument or set forth facts or circumstances establishing error

by the District Court in the underlying cause at issue here. Further, his Petition for

Restitution & Compensation – Stress & Mental Anguish is likewise an insufficient

pleading and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Peter had full opportunity to litigate his perceived grievances with Tiffaney—including the

mental anguish, stress, and trauma he asserts Tiffaney caused him as a result of their

marriage; her marriages, aliases, and debts and income/assets; and her evidentiary

                                             3
presentation in the dissolution action—as well as the processes and determinations of the

district court in the dissolution action. Thus, his claims are additionally barred by the

doctrine of res judicata. Fisher v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 1999 MT 308, ¶ 10, 297 Mont.

201, 991 P.2d 452.

¶6     We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the

Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of

applicable standards of review.

¶7     Affirmed.

                                                 /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON

We concur:

/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ JIM RICE

                                             4