819 N.W.2d 841
Wis. Ct. App.2012Background
- Patterson learns neighbor Michael Lentz, a convicted sex offender, lives in the community and distributes a six-page flier with public information about him.
- The flier includes Michael's photo, his offenses, and Wanda and Allan Keller's contact information as Michael's parents.
- The Kellers retain counsel; their letter warns of a potential lawsuit and Patterson responds by seeking temporary restraining orders against Wanda and Greggory Lentz, while Patterson also files a complaint and petitions alleging harassment and related misconduct.
- Patterson's TRO petitions and complaint are granted ex parte; Patterson later dismisses them prior to service.
- In December 2009 the Kellers and Greggory sue for invasion of privacy, defamation, and abuse of process; Patterson moves for summary judgment, which the trial court grants on some claims.
- The court affirms the privacy and defamation rulings, reverses on abuse of process, and remands; the cross-appeal regarding frivolous-claims sanctions is addressed with mixed outcomes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Patterson's conduct violated privacy under Wis. Stat. 995.50(2)(a). | Kellers: invasion via nonphysical, private-space intrusion. | Patterson: no invasion since information was public and no physical intrusion occurred. | No invasion of privacy under (2)(a). |
| Whether Patterson's conduct violated privacy under Wis. Stat. 995.50(2)(c). | Kellers: publication of private information in a highly offensive way. | Patterson: information was publicly available; not private. | No invasion of privacy under (2)(c). |
| Whether Patterson committed abuse of process. | Kellers: filing false pleadings and TROs to improperly leverage or intimidate. | Patterson: none of the steps constituted misuse; dismissal negates misuse. | Fraudulent filing and pursuit of TROs constituted misuse; material fact question remains. |
| Whether the defamation claim was barred by privilege for statements in pleadings. | Kellers: even false statements in pleadings should not be privileged if baseless. | Patterson: pleadings are privileged if relevant to issues; falsehoods still privileged. | Privilege applied; statements in pleadings were privileged and not actionable. |
| Whether the action or parts thereof were frivolous and subject to sanctions. | Kellers: not frivolous; sufficient investigation and basis. | Patterson: some claims lacked support and warranted sanctions. | Not frivolous for invasion/defamation; sanctions upheld for cross-appeal, with costs awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ladd v. Uecker, 323 Wis. 2d 798 (Wis. App. 2010) (invasion of privacy; public-record information; no private intrusion)
- Spoehr v. Mittelstadt, 150 N.W.2d 502 (Wis. 1967) (pleadings privilege for statements pertinent to issues)
- Strid v. Converse, 331 N.W.2d 350 (Wis. 1983) (abuse-of-process framework and elements)
- Brownsell v. Klawitter, 306 N.W.2d 41 (Wis. 1981) (two elements of misuse and ulterior motive in process)
- Jandrt ex rel. Brueggeman v. Jerome Foods, Inc., 597 N.W.2d 744 (Wis. 1999) (litigation claims must be adequately investigated; riders not allowed)
- Hillman v. Columbia Cnty., 474 N.W.2d 913 (Ct. App. 1991) (restatement versus Wisconsin approach to intrusion/privacy)
- Steiger v. Nowakowski, 227 N.W.2d 104 (Wis. 1975) (entry upon land may be by crossing boundary; trespass principles)
- Storms v. Action Wisconsin Inc., 750 N.W.2d 739 (Wis. 2008) (standards for frivolous pleadings; newer § 802.05 guidance)