Witt Properties, LLC v. Laura Schaeffer
2019AP001262
| Wis. Ct. App. | Apr 23, 2020Background
- Witt Properties owned a duplex and Schaeffer was a longtime tenant under a written one-year lease that auto‑renewed annually unless 45 days' notice was given.
- Witt Properties served a timely nonrenewal letter on March 1, 2019, explaining it was considering selling the duplex; the lease expired April 30, 2019.
- After Schaeffer asked Witt Properties to reconsider, the landlord (through agent Schwartzlow) offered a month‑to‑month lease with different terms between April 11–24, 2019 but later rescinded that offer on April 24.
- Witt Properties served a 28‑day termination notice on May 2, 2019; Schaeffer did not vacate and Witt Properties brought a small‑claims eviction action.
- At a bench trial the circuit court limited certain questioning (citing Wis. Stat. § 906.11), admitted the lease, and rejected Schaeffer’s defenses: (1) that the court improperly curtailed testimony and (2) that the eviction was retaliatory or invalid due to lease ambiguity.
- The court entered judgment for Witt Properties; Schaeffer appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Witt Properties) | Defendant's Argument (Schaeffer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred by invoking Wis. Stat. § 906.11 to limit witness questioning in a small‑claims eviction | Forfeiture: Schaeffer failed to object; alternatively court had authority (small‑claims rule analogous to § 906.11) | Court lacked authority to apply § 906.11 in small claims because small claims are not governed by statutory evidence rules; limiting questioning prejudiced Schaeffer | Court affirmed: issue largely forfeited; even on merits court had authority under small‑claims rule (§ 799.209) and Schaeffer failed to show prejudice |
| Whether the eviction was retaliatory under Wis. Stat. § 704.45 | Landlord acted for legitimate reasons (intended to sell; nonrenewal given March 1; month‑to‑month offer rescinded for valid scheduling/attendance reasons) | Landlord rescinded the offer on April 24 after Schaeffer requested to review the lease, so rescission was retaliatory | Court affirmed: nonrenewal occurred in March; no clear erroneous finding of retaliatory purpose; evidence supported landlord's intent to sell and legitimate reasons to rescind offer |
| Whether the termination notice was improper due to an ambiguity in the lease | Lease was admitted into evidence; court allowed legal argument; no prejudicial exclusion of evidence | Court prevented reading lease verbatim and curtailed examination, which Schaeffer says limited her ability to challenge notice | Court affirmed: court invited legal argument on ambiguity, lease was in evidence, and excluding duplicative testimony did not affect substantial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Martindale v. Ripp, 246 Wis. 2d 67 (2001 WI 113) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids Sch. Dist., 327 Wis. 2d 572 (2010 WI 86) (forfeiture; issues not raised below are generally forfeited)
- Nommensen v. American Continental Ins. Co., 246 Wis. 2d 132 (2001 WI 112) (error affects substantial rights standard; "reasonable possibility" test)
- Littleton v. Langlois, 37 Wis. 2d 360 (1967) (purpose of small‑claims procedure is speedy, summary justice)
- Royster‑Clark, Inc. v. Olsen's Mill, Inc., 290 Wis. 2d 264 (2006 WI 46) (appellate review of circuit court factfinding — clearly erroneous standard)
- Dunlop v. Laitsch, 16 Wis. 2d 36 (1962) (agreement to agree is not a binding contract)
- State v. King, 120 Wis. 2d 285 (Ct. App. 1984) (appellate court may affirm for right result even if wrong reason cited)
- State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627 (Ct. App. 1992) (undeveloped arguments may be declined on appeal)