GUIFFRIDA v. GLICK (2019)

¶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 Ron Glick appeals from a Protection Order from the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, dated December 7, 2018, requiring him, in part, to stay at least 1500 feet away from Mara Guiffrida’s residence and place of work. The Protection Order expires on December 6, 2019. Glick raises numerous issues on appeal, which are without merit, unsupported by legal argument and citation, unrelated to the Protection Order proceedings, or already reviewed and rejected by this Court in his prior motion to disqualify Judge Ulbricht. We affirm the District Court.

¶3 “The decision to continue, amend or make permanent an order of protection is for the District Court to determine, and we will not overturn its decision absent an abuse of discretion.” Schiller v. Schiller, 2002 MT 103, ¶ 24, 309 Mont. 431, 47 P.3d 816. The District Court conducted a hearing and took evidence pursuant to § 40-15-202, MCA. The District Court took judicial notice of two prior orders of protection it had granted to Guiffrida against Glick. Both Glick and Guiffrida testified and Glick called two additional witnesses to testify on his behalf. Glick confirmed that in October 2018 he repeatedly visited Guiffrida’s next door neighbor and had walked past Guiffrida’s home. Given the history between the parties, Guiffrida testified Glick’s behavior caused her to have an anxiety attack, asthma attack, and caused sleeplessness. After reviewing the record, we conclude there was substantial evidence from Guiffrida’s testimony that Glick was stalking her and that an order of protection was appropriate. See Boushie v. Windsor, 2014 MT 153, ¶ 12, 375 Mont. 301, 328 P.3d 631 (“It is within the province of the finder of fact to weigh the evidence presented and determine the credibility of witnesses.” (quoting State v. Gladue, 1999 MT 1, ¶ 40, 293 Mont. 1, 972 P.2d 827)).

¶4 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. The District Court’s ruling was not an abuse of discretion.

¶5 Affirmed.

Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

We concur: MIKE McGRATH, C.J. JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA, J. DIRK M. SANDEFUR, J. JIM RICE, J.