|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED July 20, 1995 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and Rule
809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 94-0302
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
OLIVER A. PENTINMAKI,
JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MARY C. VOLKER,
Defendant-Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of
the circuit court for Dane County:
RICHARD J. CALLAWAY, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Eich, C.J.,
Sundby and Vergeront, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Oliver Pentinmaki, Jr.,
appeals from an order dismissing his abuse of process complaint against Mary
Volker, his former wife. Volker,
representing herself, submitted factual material with her answer, indicating
that Pentinmaki filed this action as part of a long-standing campaign of
harassment directed against her, and that his allegations lacked a factual
basis. The court ordered Pentinmaki to
submit facts in rebuttal, which he did.
In the functional equivalent of a summary judgment decision, the court
then concluded that the proofs established no abuse of process by Volker, and
that Pentinmaki had commenced this action solely to harass her. The record fully supports these
conclusions. We therefore affirm.
An abuse of process
occurs when one uses a legal process to accomplish a purpose for which it is
not designed. Brownsell v.
Klawitter, 102 Wis.2d 108, 114, 306 N.W.2d 41, 44 (1981). The process must result in a legal
proceeding. See id.
at 114-15, 306 N.W.2d at 44-45. Here,
Pentinmaki's complaint alleges instances where Volker complained of his actions
to the police, the court and his probation agent over a period of several
years. During this same period,
Pentinmaki was constantly commencing legal proceedings against Volker. Pentinmaki did not allege, nor do the facts
of record show, that any additional legal proceedings resulted from these
complaints. With no evidence that
Volker ever invoked legal process in the alleged instances, the court properly
dismissed the action.
The trial court also
properly concluded on the undisputed facts that Pentinmaki commenced this
action solely to harass Volker. In the
parties' divorce judgment, entered in 1990, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court
made specific findings regarding what it described as Pentinmaki's bad faith,
manipulation, lying, litigiousness and vengefulness. The court also found numerous instances of physical and verbal
abuse of Volker, as well as an attempt, in May 1990, to frame her on criminal
charges by planting cocaine in her house and then inducing their children to
call the police.
The divorce judgment
generated an onslaught of further litigation, including literally hundreds of
trial court motions and ten appeals and five petitions filed in this
court. Pentinmaki has requested a John
Doe hearing on his marital dispute and has unsuccessfully sought a restraining
order against Volker. He has been
criminally prosecuted during the dispute.
The trial judge who presided over the divorce stated at a subsequent
hearing that "this man has indicated unequivocally that he is going to
spend his life pursuing this [litigation]." The successor to that judge described Pentinmaki as obsessed with
the marital dispute and, a few months before Pentinmaki commenced this action,
ordered that he could not file any further motions in the marital action
without permission.[1] Given that background and Pentinmaki's
failure to produce any proof to support his allegations, the trial court
reasonably concluded that this proceeding was one more attempt to harass his
former wife. The court properly made
that determination on summary judgment because the facts necessary to support
it are either undisputed or established in earlier court proceedings, and no
other inference is reasonably available.
See § 802.08(2), Stats.
In her respondent's
brief, Volker argues that this appeal was also commenced solely to harass
her. On the basis of the same factual
record available to the trial court and the absence of any merit on the issues
raised, we agree. The undisputed and
established evidence of Pentinmaki's repeated harassment of Volker is
conclusive. No other inference is
reasonably available to this court either.
The appeal is therefore frivolous.[2] Rule
809.25(3)(c), Stats.
By the Court.—Order
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.
[1] This court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the record supported the trial court's conclusion that Pentinmaki had repeatedly abused the court system. Volker v. Pentinmaki, Nos. 92-2609, 93-1070, 93-1434, unpublished slip op. at 13 (Ct. App. Apr. 19, 1994). Pentinmaki has since violated that court order and filed further motions, resulting in further denials and further appeals.