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,
(“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
2
in the same case is binding and cannot be relitigated.” State v. Wooster,
(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
3
