P. Grigg v. T. Grigg

01/17/2023
DA 22-0225
Case Number: DA 22-0225
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2023 MT 11NPETER 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