COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED June 1, 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
from a judgment of the circuit court for
¶1 KESSLER, J.[2] Luis Cervando Enciso-Lopez appeals a small claims court judgment in which the court found that he lacked standing to sue Virgilio and Neisy Monteagudo and La Gordola, Inc. (collectively, “the Monteagudos”). Enciso [3] contends that the small claims court[4] erred when it held that he did not have standing to sue because his oral contract with the Monteagudos was unenforceable based on his wife’s illegal immigration status. Because we conclude that Enciso did have standing to bring his claims against the Monteagudos, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceeding.
BACKGROUND
¶2 Enciso is a legal permanent resident of the
¶3 In November 2007, Alicia was interviewed by the USCIS and was
subsequently deported. Enciso then drove
his three children to
¶4 Enciso brought a small claims action against the Monteagudos claiming that Alicia was deported as a result of the Monteagudos’s faulty advice, and that Enciso was therefore entitled to recover all of the expenses he incurred with regard to consultation fees, filing and processing fees, medical examination fees and travel expenses. Specifically, Enciso’s complaint alleged: (1) unjust enrichment; (2) breach of contract/breach of an implied duty of good faith; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) intentional misrepresentation; (5) unfair trade practices; (6) notary misconduct; and (7) negligent provision of services.
¶5 After various filings and motions from both parties in small claims court, the Monteagudos ultimately moved for summary judgment, arguing that Enciso’s claims were derivative of his wife, who was not a party to the action, and he therefore lacked standing to sue. The Monteagudos also filed motions for sanctions alleging discovery violations, and that (1) many of Enciso’s claims were time-barred; (2) Enciso’s claim was presented for an improper purpose; and (3) Enciso failed to plead his fraud-based claims with specificity. Although the small claims court did not agree that Enciso’s claims were derivative, it granted summary judgment for the Monteagudos, stating “there is no standing and [Alicia] was here illegally by her own choice. Therefore it’s an unenforceable contract.” In its written order granting summary judgment, the small claims court also denied the Monteagudos’s motions for sanctions. Enciso now appeals the final judgment.
DISCUSSION
¶6 Enciso argues that the small claims court erred when it found
that he did not have standing to sue because his wife was in the
¶7 “In order to have standing to sue, a party must have a personal
stake in the outcome ... and must be directly affected by the issues in
controversy.” Village of Slinger v. City of
Hartford, 2002 WI App 187, ¶9, 256 Wis. 2d 859, 650 N.W.2d 81 (internal
citation omitted). “
¶8 We agree with the small claims court that Enciso’s claims
were not derivative of his wife’s, however we disagree that Enciso lacked
standing to sue. Although we cannot
speculate about the emotional effects Alicia’s deportation may have had on
Enciso, it is clear that Enciso sustained a monetary loss by paying various
fees in an effort to keep his wife in the country and to keep his family
together. He also incurred expenses when
he took his children to be with his wife in
¶9 Because we conclude that Enciso did have standing to sue the
Monteagudos, we need not address the various constitutional arguments Enciso
put forth. See State v. Hale, 2005 WI 7, ¶42, 277
¶10 With regard to the Monteagudos’s cross-appeal, we conclude that a review of the small claims court’s order on sanctions is not necessary at this time because Enciso has standing to bring his claims. If necessary, the small claims court can address the discovery issues raised by the Monteagudos’s motions in the context of Enciso’s trial.
By the Court.—Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
[1] Virgilio and Neisy Monteagudo and La Gordola, Inc. also cross-appealed an order denying their motions for sanctions. We conclude that a review of this order is not necessary at this time for reasons explained further in this opinion.
[2] This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 752.31(2) (2009-10).
[3] Because the appellant’s briefs refer to him as “Enciso,” we will do the same.
[4] This matter started out in small claims court, but because of a recusal and substitution, the case was transferred to the Honorable Thomas R. Cooper, who presided as “small claims court.”
[5] Enciso
contends that “[n]atives of