District IV
March 20, 2014
To:
Hon. Juan B. Colas
Circuit Court Judge
215 South Hamilton, Br.10, Rm. 7103
Madison, WI 53703
Carlo Esqueda
Clerk of Circuit Court
Room 1000
215 South Hamilton
Madison, WI 53703
Marta T. Meyers
Boardman & Clark, LLP
1 S. Pinckney St., 4th Fl.
P.O. Box 927
Madison, WI 53701-0927
Bratislav Stankovic
Veljko Vlahovic 18/19
1000 Skopje,
Republic of Macedonia
Mark J. Steichen
Boardman & Clark, LLP
P.O. Box 927
Madison, WI 53701-0927
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re the marriage of: Ana Garic-Stankovic v. Bratislav Stankovic (L.C. # 2009FA405) |
|
|
|
|
|
Before Blanchard, P.J., Lundsten and Sherman, JJ.
Bratislav Stankovic appeals from a postdivorce order that denied his “motion requesting explanation of judge’s misappropriation of respondent’s $18,000.” Respondent Ana Garic moves for a protective order limiting Stankovic’s ability to file future motions or appeals in the family action. After reviewing the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21(1) (2011-12).[1] We affirm the circuit court’s order but deny the motion for a protective order.
According to the affidavit and exhibits filed in support of Stankovic’s circuit court motion, the $18,000 to which Stankovic refers was a check he was ordered to draft in February of 2010 to deposit in a client trust fund, which was later distributed in increments to Stankovic’s ex-wife, Garic, as part of a child support offset to the property division.
Garic points out that this court affirmed the judgment of divorce—necessarily including both the property division and child support awards—in Garic-Stankovic v. Stankovic, No. 2011AP2262, unpublished op. and order (WI App April 8, 2013). Stankovic does not dispute Garic’s assertion that Stankovic has previously raised before this court all of the issues he is now asserting on this appeal relating to the property division. Under the law of the case doctrine, “‘a decision on a legal issue by an appellate court establishes the law of the case, which must be followed in all subsequent proceedings in the trial court or on later appeal.’” State v. Stuart, 2003 WI 73, ¶23, 262 Wis. 2d 620, 664 N.W.2d 82 (quoted source omitted). We therefore conclude that Stankovic is procedurally barred from again challenging the property division on appeal.
As to the requested protective order, Garic has not addressed the criteria for restricting a litigant’s access to court as set forth in Village of Tigerton v. Minniecheske, 211 Wis. 2d 777, 785-86, 565 N.W.2d 586 (Ct. App. 1997) and Minniecheske v. Griesbach, 161 Wis. 2d 743, 748-49, 468 N.W.2d 760 (Ct. App. 1991). Nor has she provided citations to any authority that would authorize this court to restrict filing in any court other than our own. We therefore decline to grant the requested relief at this time, although we do not preclude the future possibility of such an order if Stankovic continues his pattern of repetitive litigation.
IT IS ORDERED that the postdivorce order denying Stankovic’s “motion requesting explanation” is summarily affirmed pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21(1).
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals