COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED June 15, 2010 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 No. |
|
|||
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT III |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
In re the estate of Norma D. Rankel: Jill Ardis, Appellant, v. Gary Rankel and Kay Rankel Gamsky, Respondents. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
Before
¶1 PER CURIAM. Jill Ardis appeals a summary judgment dismissing an objection to the admission of Norma Rankel’s will on the grounds of undue influence.[1] Ardis also appeals the appointment of Gary Rankel as personal representative, based on a contention that he improperly obtained survivorship rights in a joint account. We affirm.
¶2 Norma died on June 11, 2007.
She was survived by three children:
Ardis, Gary, and Kay Rankel Gamsky.
Norma left a will dated April 5, 2007.
At the time of Norma’s death, her estate consisted of two significant
assets, a family cottage on
¶3 After an application for informal administration was filed, Ardis
filed an objection to the admission of the 2007 will. She also objected to the appointment of
¶4 Gary and Kay filed a motion for summary judgment and a hearing was held on March 11, 2009. The evidence established that Ardis and her mother were estranged, and that Gary and Kay were involved with their mother. Affidavits from five members of a social group known as the “ladies of the lake,” Norma’s treating physician, and her attorney uniformly averred Norma was mentally independent, alert and sharp until the time she died.
¶5 At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court found Norma
was competent and of sound mind when she executed the 2007 will and there was
no evidence to establish undue influence.
Further, the court found there was no evidence to render the joint
account invalid or establish a conflict of interest regarding
¶6 Ardis insists in her brief to this court that “[n]umerous
things in the record give rise to competing inferences and support the
Appellant[’]s right to go to trial regarding the 2007 Will on the issue of
undue influence ….”[4] However, Ardis fails in her argument to
provide citation to the record on appeal.
We will not address unsupported arguments and we will not search the
record for evidence to support a party’s argument. See Grothe v. Valley Coatings, Inc.,
2000 WI App 240, ¶6, 239
¶7 Ardis also suggests without citation that suspicious
activities surrounded the 2007 will. Ardis
argues that “the 2003 will was changed only after the
Well, I mentioned Attorney Chereskin met alone with Mrs. Rankel. I find that significant. And not only that it was one day but two days, so there was time to think about this in between. In other words, they weren’t at one session and then suddenly somebody popped in and then it all got signed. All right. If I could have some evidence that the heirs suggested a plan – Attorney Bartholomew basically gave me reasons for suspicion, but you can have reasons for suspicion, but that’s different than evidence in that regard.
¶8 Nevertheless, Ardis insists that the circuit court “reviewed the record and the opposing affidavits with an eye towards whether or not the Appellant could win at a trial as opposed to determining whether or not the Appellant should be allowed to present her case at trial.” We disagree. The circuit court properly determined that Ardis’s purported inferences were mere speculation and failed to establish a genuine issue of material disputed fact. See Wis. Stat. § 802.08(3).
¶9 Ardis’s allegations of fraud in the joint account are equally
unavailing. Ardis contends
The actions of Gary in using his Power of Attorney to take all of the Decedent’s liquid funds, including the “cash” from an asset that originally belonged to all three children, and place those funds in a joint account that he alone would inherit after her death, as the result of the operation of the rules of survivorship, constitutes an abuse of his fiduciary relationship; a form of self[-]dealing; and fraud ….
¶10 Ardis once again provides no citation to the record to support this
argument and it will not be considered. In
any event,
¶11 Ardis failed to file a reply brief and has therefore conceded
the issue. Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd.
v. FPC Secs. Corp., 90
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.
[1] This is an expedited appeal under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.17. All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007-08 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] The
joint account in Shawano was the result of a sale of Norma’s
[3] Gary and Kay then filed a demand for formal proceedings concerning the subsequent proceedings of the estate. The parties stipulated that survivorship issues concerning a joint account could be determined by the probate court in conjunction with the issue of the will without the necessity of the appointment of a personal representative, and the parties would be bound by the court’s decision subject to normal appeal rights.
[4] Ardis
improperly refers to party designations such as “Appellant,” rather than to the
parties by name as required by Wis. Stat.
Rule 809.19(1)(i). Ardis’s
argument section also fails generally to provide citations to the record on
appeal. Moreover, even Ardis’s
“Statement of Facts” predominately cites generally to multi-page documents,
such as “Index 50” or “Index 52.” It
should be apparent to any lawyer that appellate briefs must give reference to
pages of the record on appeal for each statement and proposition made in the
appellate brief. Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(e); Haley v. State, 207
[5] For example, Dr. Stephen Wagner did not address Norma’s mental capacities. Michael Mervilde, a licensed social worker, refers to the “possibility” of undue influence. Mervilde also offered medical opinions arguably beyond his expertise as a social worker. However, we need not reach the issue whether, or to what extent, a social worker may render a medical opinion under the facts of this case.