COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 11, 2010 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 an order of the circuit court for
Before Fine, Kessler and
¶1 FINE, J.
I.
¶2 This is Jones’s second appeal to us on his eviction from the
Courtyard Apartments. The background
facts are set forth in our other opinion.
See Jones v. Carlton, No. 04-9728, unpublished slip op. ¶¶5–14 (WI
App
¶3 We affirmed in part, but reversed in part because there was
an issue of fact “whether Courtyard Apartments had notice of a hearing at which
Jones sought to reopen a judgment for restitution.”
¶4 On remand, the circuit court held the evidentiary hearing,
and found that the eviction writ was invalid when served, that the
¶5 In March of 2009, the jury found:
• Courtyard Apartments did not lie to the circuit court in January of 2004 to get a writ of restitution to evict Jones.
•
• Jones’s lie caused the circuit court to cancel the eviction writ.[2]
• Jones’s lie did not cause him damage.
• Courtyard Apartments caused damage to Jones during the eviction.
• The
• $6,000 would reasonably compensate Jones for the damages caused by the eviction.
• By breaching its covenant of quiet enjoyment to Jones when he was evicted from his apartment, Courtyard Apartments caused Jones $9,000 in damages.
• The
• Eagle Movers were not negligent in removing property from Jones’s apartment during the eviction.
• Jones was not entitled to any damages to compensate him for loss of his property as a result of his eviction.
• Jones suffered a $7,500 loss of his
personal property as a result of conversion by the
• Courtyard Apartments did not give Jones a proper accounting of the money it withheld from his security deposit, but that nothing was improperly withheld from the deposit.
¶6 After the jury’s verdict, Courtyard Apartments asked the circuit court to overturn the verdict because the jury found that Jones had lied to the circuit court. Jones sought a new trial because the circuit court did not submit his punitive-damages claim to the jury. He also asked for attorney fees. The circuit court denied Jones’s requests and granted Courtyard Apartments’ motion to dismiss Jones’s claims for wrongful eviction and for violation of his quiet enjoyment “as a sanction against …. Jones, for his perpetration of fraud on the court.” It also ruled that had the jury awarded any damages on the security deposit claim, it would have dismissed that claim as well. The circuit court accepted the jury’s verdict on the conversion claim because Jones’s “lies, perjury, misrepresentation, fraud on the court does not negatively impact the conversion claim.”
II.
A.
Dismissal as a
Sanction
¶7 The primary issue in this case is whether the circuit court
erroneously exercised its discretion when it set aside, as a sanction, that
part of the jury’s verdict that awarded Jones damages, based on the jury’s
finding that Jones lied to the court. A circuit
court may impose sanctions for a party’s misconduct, including dismissal of the
case, as long as the sanctioned party’s conduct is “egregious.” Schultz v. Sykes, 2001 WI App 255,
¶¶9–10, 248
Ibid. Imposition of sanctions is a discretionary
determination.
¶8 Here, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion. It explained:
[T]he jury found that Desmond Jones perpetrated a fraud on the court … to … cancel the writ of restitution, and that it ended up in that result. In essence that his fraud on the court cancelled a writ of restitution that Courtyard Apartments was granted and was entitled to have.
This case with respect to wrongful eviction, with respect to breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, with respect to the security deposit claim boils down to whether the plaintiff is entitled to any judgment or whether based on fraud on the court he should be denied his verdict.
After considering the pertinent case law, the circuit court ruled:
This court is satisfied, based on the jury’s answer, that Mr. Jones perpetrated a very serious fraud on the court in February 2004, done with the purpose to get the writ quashed, which purpose he accomplished by his fraud on the court. It is egregious. It is serious. … it is extreme, it is substantial, it is persistent to the point that he came into court on two occasions in February and then throughout this trial, and the jury rejected his testimony with respect to the misrepresentation issues in this case. There is no clear or justifiable excuse for perjury.
¶9 We agree with the circuit court’s legal conclusion that
Jones’s lie to the circuit court in order to get the writ of restitution
withdrawn was “egregious”—indeed, although Jones argues to the contrary, reasonable
persons could reach no other conclusion. See Garfoot v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 228
de novo whether the circuit court
applied the correct legal standard.). The
circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in dismissing the
claims.
B.
Punitive Damage
Claim
¶10
C.
Constitutional
Claim
¶11 Jones also argues that
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
Publication in the official reports
is not recommended.
[1] The question to the jury asked: “Did Desmond Jones make misrepresentations of fact to the Court on February 12 or February 23, 2004 for the purpose of obtaining an order from the Court to reinstate the Stipulation of September 26, 2003 and to cancel the writ of restitution that was ordered by the Court on January 27, 2004 in order to prevent his eviction?” The jury answered: “Yes.”
[2] The
jury was also asked: “Did such
misrepresentations result in the Court reinstating the Stipulation of