COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 15, 2011 A.
John Voelker Acting 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 |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT III |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
Curtis Burt and Audrey Burt,
Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Robert Staeheli,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
¶1
BACKGROUND
¶2 The Burts rented an apartment from Staeheli between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2008. They paid a $1,400 security deposit. In November 2008, the Burts gave Staeheli proper notice that they were vacating the property and provided Staeheli with their forwarding address. The Burts vacated the property on December 31, 2008.
¶3 The Burts contend they never received an accounting or reimbursement of their security deposit. Staeheli, however, argues that within the mandated twenty-one-day time period, he returned $700 of the security deposit along with an accounting that detailed the remaining deposit would be applied to damages. However, once outside the twenty-one-day period, Staeheli issued a stop payment on the check and retained the full amount of the security deposit.
¶4 The Burts brought a small claims action against Staeheli to recover their security deposit and sought double damages and attorney fees. Staeheli appealed the court commissioner’s decision and requested a jury trial in the circuit court.
¶5 The Burts moved for summary judgment, asserting they were entitled to double damages and attorney fees because Staeheli had violated the administrative code. Specifically, the Burts alleged Staeheli violated the code by issuing a lease that contained an attorney fees provision, in violation of Wis. Admin. Code § ATCP 134.08(3),[2] and by improperly withholding their security deposit, in violation of Wis. Admin. Code § ATCP 134.06.
¶6 The circuit court granted summary judgment in part, reasoning Staeheli was liable for double damages and attorney fees because the lease contained an attorney fees provision. However, the court denied summary judgment for damages, reasoning there was a question of fact concerning any offset to which Staeheli was entitled.
¶7 The court held a hearing to determine damages and concluded Staeheli was entitled to an offset. The court doubled the amount of the wrongfully withheld security deposit less the offset and awarded the Burts costs and attorney fees under Wis. Stat. § 100.20(5).[3]
DISCUSSION
¶8 Staeheli raises three arguments on appeal. First, he asserts the circuit court erred when it granted partial summary judgment. Second, Staeheli argues the circuit court erred when calculating damages. Third, he contends the circuit court erred by failing to have a jury decide the factual issues. The Burts argue they are entitled to attorney fees and costs associated with defending this appeal.
I. Summary Judgment
¶9 When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we apply the same
methodology as the circuit court and independently determine whether summary
judgment was appropriate. Turner
v. Taylor, 2003 WI App 256, ¶7, 268
¶10 Staeheli first asserts the circuit court erred in granting
summary judgment because it improperly relied on Baierl v. McTaggart, 2001
WI 107, 245 Wis. 2d 632, 629 N.W.2d 277, to impose liability. Baierl involved a situation where
tenants vacated the property prior to the expiration of their lease.
¶11 In this case, the circuit court determined that Staeheli’s inclusion of the attorney fees provision in the Burts’ lease made Staeheli automatically liable for double damages, costs, and attorney fees. However, to be liable for double damages, costs, and attorney fees, the circuit court must determine whether the tenants suffered a pecuniary loss as a result of the landlord’s violation of the administrative code. See Wis. Stat. § 100.20(5). Here, the circuit court erred when it determined the Burts suffered a pecuniary loss merely because of an unenforceable lease. Consequently, we agree with Staeheli that the circuit court improperly determined that he was liable for double damages, costs, and attorney fees because his lease violated the administrative code.
¶12 However, we may nevertheless affirm if the circuit court
reached the right result for the wrong reason.
State v. Amrine, 157
¶13 Staeheli argues that summary judgment is improper because there
is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Staeheli complied with the
administrative code. We reject
Staeheli’s argument and affirm the circuit court’s grant of summary
judgment. Assuming Staeheli did send an accounting
and partial reimbursement to the Burts within the mandated twenty-one-day time
period, it is undisputed that once outside the twenty-one-day time period,
Staeheli put a stop payment on the alleged reimbursement check and retained the
full $1,400. Such conduct constitutes
improper withholding of the security deposit and is in direct violation of the
administrative code. See Wis.
Admin. Code § ATCP 134.06. The
Burts suffered a pecuniary loss as a result of Staeheli’s wrongful withholding
of their security deposit. Consequently,
Staeheli is liable for double damages, costs, and attorney fees.
II. Damages
¶14 Staeheli next argues the circuit court erred when calculating
damages and attorney fees. Staeheli
offers no legal authority or citation to the record in support of his
contention. We need not address
undeveloped arguments. State
v. Pettit, 171
III. Jury Trial
¶15 Staeheli argues the circuit court erred by not granting him a jury trial. However, it is undisputed that Staeheli retained the entire security deposit in violation of the administrative code. Because the facts are undisputed, the determination that Staeheli violated the administrative code is a matter of law, not a question of fact.
¶16 Although the circuit court did engage in fact-finding concerning
any offset to which Staeheli would be entitled, Staeheli has not provided us
with a transcript of that proceeding.[4] Consequently, we cannot ascertain from the
record why the court itself engaged in the fact-finding regarding damages. “When an appellate record is incomplete in
connection with an issue raised by the appellant, we must assume that the
missing material supports the trial court’s ruling.” Fiumefreddo v. McLean, 174
IV. Appellate Costs and Attorney Fees
¶17 The Burts request appellate costs and attorney fees pursuant to
Wis. Stat. § 100.20(5). We determine the Burts are entitled to those costs
and fees because Staeheli violated the administrative code in regard to the
Burts’ security deposit. In Shands
v. Castrovinci, 115
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed and cause remanded with directions.
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 2009-10 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] All references to the Wisconsin Administrative Code are to the November 2006 version.
[3] Wisconsin Stat. § 100.20(5) provides: “Any person suffering pecuniary loss because of a violation by any other person of any order issued under this section may sue for damages therefor in any court of competent jurisdiction and shall recover twice the amount of such pecuniary loss, together with costs, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.”
[4] The only transcript included in the record is the first pretrial conference held in August 2009. The record does not include transcripts from the multiple hearings that occurred between August 2009 and the June 2010 damages hearing.