Karen Zahran v. Christine Rademacher
2023AP000605, 2023AP001411
| Wis. Ct. App. | Jun 25, 2024Background
- The Zahrans (plaintiffs) alleged they had an oral agreement with the Rademachers (defendants) to jointly purchase and split a property after the original seller rejected the Zahrans' direct offer.
- Ruth Rademacher purchased the property solely in her name; the Zahrans contributed half the earnest money and down payment, expecting a later split of the property.
- The property was never divided due to disputes over the specifics of the division, and the Rademachers offered to return the Zahrans' payments, which the Zahrans refused.
- The Zahrans, proceeding pro se, filed eleven claims including breach of joint venture, breach of contract, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, racketeering, and fraud.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Rademachers and imposed monetary sanctions (attorney fees) on Robin Zahran for egregious litigation conduct, but did not allow Robin to review or object to the amount of attorney fees before requiring payment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary Judgment (Contract Claims) | Oral agreement enforceable despite statute of frauds | Statute of frauds bars enforcement; no written agreement; no equitable basis | Statute of frauds applies; no enforceable contract; summary judgment affirmed |
| Summary Judgment (Other Claims) | Claims should survive; issues of misrepresentation, etc. | No factual basis, Zahrans non-responsive, or economically barred | Summary judgment affirmed on all other claims |
| Sanctions | Due process violated—no hearing; didn't receive notice | Sanctions proper for egregious conduct; proper notice given | Sanctions affirmed; notice and opportunity to be heard were adequate |
| Attorney Fees Award | Denied due process—no chance to review or object to fee amount | Award proper given Robin's behavior | Judgment reversed on this issue; remanded for due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaefer v. Schaefer, 72 Wis. 2d 600 (Wis. 1976) (joint venture agreement for real estate must be in writing under statute of frauds)
- Anderson v. Quinn, 306 Wis. 2d 686 (Wis. 2007) (requirement for certainty in land description in contracts)
- Headstart Bldg., LLC v. National Ctrs. for Learning Excellence, Inc., 379 Wis. 2d 346 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017) (price is an essential term in real estate contracts)
- Halverson v. River Falls Youth Hockey Ass’n, 226 Wis. 2d 105 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999) (defining unjust enrichment in Wisconsin)
- Schultz v. Sykes, 248 Wis. 2d 746 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001) (court’s inherent authority to sanction for misconduct)