COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 18, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
¶1 PETERSON, J.[1] Midwest
Amusement Park, USA International Raceway (Midwest) appeals a small claims
judgment awarding GFS Innovative Marketing Solutions, LLC damages for breach of
contract.
¶2 In State v. Bons, 2007 WI App 124, ¶21, 301
relevant trial court record entries, the findings or opinion of the trial court and limited portions of the record essential to an understanding of the issues raised, including oral or written rulings or decisions showing the trial court’s reasoning regarding those issues.
¶3 A proper appendix is necessary for efficient functioning of
this court. A proper appendix “makes
readily available to each [judge] the matters which he or she must know … to
give intelligent attention to the issues presented by the appeal” and avoids
the need for time-consuming searches of the record. Bons, 301
¶4 This case arises out of an alleged modification of a contract, and the parties dispute whether the circuit court applied the correct standard of law. The circuit court’s findings and reasoning are found in the final five pages of the trial transcript. These findings are both “the findings … of the trial court” and an oral ruling “showing the trial court’s reasoning” on a disputed issue before this court. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(2)(a).
¶5 However, Midwest’s attorney, Attorney John Scott,[2]
included only certain trial exhibits and the notice of entry of judgment—a
document giving only the dollar amount of the judgment—in Midwest’s appendix. The
appendix does not include any of the trial court’s findings, rulings or
decisions showing its reasoning. Perhaps
more egregious, Attorney Scott filed a certification that the appendix complied
with Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(2)(a), when
in fact it did not. The certification is
manifestly false. See Bons, 301
¶6 In
Bons,
we concluded the appropriate sanction for a faulty appendix and false
certification was a penalty of $150.
¶7 First, Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19
requires briefs include a fact section with “appropriate references to the record.” Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(d)
(emphasis added). The appendix is not
the record. United Rentals, Inc. v. City of
Madison, 2007 WI App 131, ¶1 n.2, 302 Wis. 2d 245, 733 N.W.2d 322. Except
for citations to the trial transcript,
¶8 In
a previous appeal, we admonished
By the Court.—Appeal dismissed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
[1] This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 752.31(2). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2005-06 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] Attorney Peter Horejsi also signed the briefs, but did not sign the appendix certification.
[3] Attorney
Horejsi represented