House v. Orr

10/28/2025

DA 25-0186 Case Number: DA 25-0186

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2025 MT 248N

TIFFANY HOUSE,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CONRAD COGGESHALL,

Defendant,

DAVID E. ORR,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Lincoln, Cause No. DV-22-18 Honorable Matthew J. Cuffe, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

David E. Orr, Self-Represented, Libby, Montana

For Appellee:

W. Bridger Christian, Christian, Samson & Baskett, PLLC, Missoula, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: October 15, 2025

Decided: October 28, 2025 Filed:

__________________________________________ Clerk

Justice James Jeremiah Shea delivered the Opinion for the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion, 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 Appellant David E. Orr appeals the Nineteenth Judicial District Court’s Order Granting Motion to Dismiss and for Entry of Final Judgment regarding a parcel of property (“the Property”) in Lincoln County. This matter was previously before us in House v. Orr, 2024 MT 204N, 555 P.3d 258 (“House I”). In House I, we affirmed the District Court’s orders granting Tiffany House’s motion for summary judgment and quieting title to the Property in House’s name. House I, ¶¶ 2, 14. ¶3 After we affirmed the District Court’s orders, Orr filed multiple motions seeking the District Court to reverse its previous rulings and “quiet title back to [Orr].” The District Court rejected all of Orr’s arguments and on February 7, 2025, it issued an order entering final judgment confirming House’s ownership of the Property and dismissing the matter with prejudice. ¶4 Orr raises five issues on appeal, none of which have merit, and all of which amount to nothing more than attempts to relitigate a matter that has already been decided by the District Court and affirmed by this Court. House I established that the District Court correctly quieted title to the Property in House’s name. “Under the doctrine of the law of the case, a prior decision of this Court resolving a particular issue between the same parties *3 in the same case is binding and cannot be relitigated.” State v. Wooster, 2001 MT 4, ¶ 12, 304 Mont. 56, 16 P.3d 409 (citation omitted). This case is over. ¶5 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. This appeal presents no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does not establish new precedent or modify existing precedent. The District Court’s February 7, 2025, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss and for Entry of Final Judgment is affirmed.

/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA We Concur:

/S/ LAURIE McKINNON /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON /S/ JIM RICE