Townsend v. Massey, 808 N.W.2d 155

Willa L. is mother of Jennifer Townsend and Rebecca Massey; guardianship was sought due to dementia and memory loss affecting care decisions.
Jennifer Townsend petitioned for permanent guardianship and was granted power to supervise contact between Willa and Masseys for 90 days.
In a later proceeding, Townsend's powers were extended and modified to further control Masseys' contact with Willa.
The Masseys appeal challenging the validity of Townsend's contact-restriction powers was pursued after the November 2010 modification.
The circuit court approved, and the appellate court ultimately affirmed, the November 2010 order granting Townsend ongoing control over Masseys' contact with Willa.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal for May 2010 order	Masseys maintained the May order was appealable and timely.	Townsend asserted May order was not timely appealed under 90-day rule.	The May 2010 order appeal is untimely.
Timeliness of appeal for July 2010 order	Masseys argued July order could be reviewed as final/non-final in sequence with later orders.	Townsend argued July order was final for appeal purposes.	The July 2010 order was final and timely as an appealable final order.
Effect of November 2010 modification on forfeiture of new arguments	Masseys raised issues in the November modification that were brought on appeal.	Townsend urged forfeiture of new appellate arguments not preserved below.	New appellate arguments regarding the November order were forfeited.
Timeliness of the request for costs and attorney's fees	Townsend sought costs/fees under Wis. Stat. 809.25(3).	Masseys did not timely oppose; request was untimely.	Townsend's motion for costs and attorney's fees was untimely and denied.

Tyler v. RiverBank, 299 Wis.2d 751 (Wis. 2007) (test for finality of a judgment/order for appeal)
Fredrick v. City of Janesville, 285 N.W.2d 655 (Wis. 1979) (finality look at document itself, not subsequent events)
Sanders v. Estate of Sanders, 310 Wis.2d 175 (Wis. 2008) (finality and appeal within 90 days after final order)
State v. Ndina, 761 N.W.2d 612 (Wis. 2009) (forfeiture policy promotes efficient litigation)
Goudy v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 324 Wis.2d 441 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010) (new arguments may be raised on appeal but forfeiture remains)
Holland Plastics Co., 331 N.W.2d 320 (Wis. 1983) (state that new arguments may be raised on appeal in limited contexts)
Schonscheck v. Paccar, Inc., 661 N.W.2d 476 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003) (fundamental forfeiture inquiry focuses on preservation below)
State v. Rogers, 539 N.W.2d 897 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995) (forfeiture rule and preserving arguments in trial court)
Olmsted v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 240 Wis.2d 197 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000) (forfeiture and judicial efficiency rationale)