District IV
October 28, 2014�
To:
Hon. Thomas T. Flugaur
Circuit Court Judge
Portage Co. Courthouse
1516 Church Street
Stevens Point, WI �54481-3598
Patricia Cal Baker
Clerk of Circuit Court
Portage Co. Courthouse
1516 Church Street
Stevens Point, WI �54481-3598
James M. Klein
Glinski, Klein, Anderson & Haka, SC
P. O. Box 325
Stevens Point, WI 54481-0325
Gary J. Kryshak
Brazeau, Wefel, Kryshak & Nettesheim LLP
262 W. Grand Ave.
P. O. Box 639
Wisconsin Rapids, WI �54494
Michael J. Lauterbach
Lauterbach Legal LLC
2417A Post Road, Suite C
Stevens Point, WI �54481
Maris Rushevics
Law Office of Maris Rushevics
1265 Main Street #106
Stevens Point, WI �54481-2885
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:�
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Roupas v. George P. Barkoulis (L.C. # 2003CV325) |
|
|
|
|
|
Before Blanchard, P.J., Lundsten and Sherman, JJ.� �
David and Barbara Zagrzebski appeal a judgment awarding George Barkoulis $248,500 following a jury trial on Barkoulis� claim for tortious interference with a contract.� Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition.� See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21 (2011-12).[1]� We summarily affirm.�
As part of a proposed restaurant venture, the Zagrzebskis leased property to Barkoulis, and Barkoulis subleased that property to George Roupas.� After Roupas failed to make required payments under sublease, Barkoulis sued the Zagrzebskis for intentional interference with a contract.[2]� This appeal follows the second trial that resulted in a jury verdict in favor of Barkoulis.[3] �The circuit court denied a motion by the Zagrzebskis for a new trial and entered judgment for Barkoulis.�
The Zagrzebskis contend that there was no credible evidence to support the jury finding of intentional interference with a contract or the damages award of $248,500.� So far as we can tell, the Zagrzebskis are asserting that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict.� See Morden v. Continental AG, 2000 WI 51, �38, 235 Wis. 2d 325, 611 N.W.2d 659 (a jury verdict withstands appellate review if �there is any credible evidence to support it�).� However, the Zagrzebskis have failed to develop a legal argument, with citation to relevant legal authority, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury verdict as to intentional interference with a contract or as to damages.� Indeed, as Barkoulis points out, the Zagrzebskis fail to cite a single statute or case in their brief-in-chief.� They do not set forth the applicable standard of review or develop an argument that the jury verdict cannot withstand that review. �We can and do affirm on this basis.� See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646�47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (this court need not consider inadequately developed arguments).
Although we affirm based on the Zagrzebskis� failure to adequately develop their arguments, were we to reach those arguments, we would reject them on the merits as well.� The crux of the Zagrzebskis� appeal is that Roupas breached the sublease because Barkoulis breached his lease with the Zagrzebskis, not because of any action by the Zagrzebskis.� In support of this argument, the Zagrzebskis point to evidence that would support that finding.� For example, the Zagrzebskis point to evidence that Roupas failed to make a required down payment in September 2003, and that the Zagrzebskis met with Roupas in mid-January 2004 and discussed having Roupas take over the restaurant if Barkoulis failed.� From this, the Zagrzebskis argue that there was no evidence to support a finding that the Zagrzebskis interfered with the sublease at the time Roupas failed to make the down payment.� In essence, the Zagrzebskis point to evidence favorable to factual findings in their favor, as if this court were the trier of fact.� This court, however, reviews jury verdicts in the light most favorable to the verdict.� Morden, 235 Wis. 2d 325, �39.� We conclude that the Zagrzebskis have failed to establish that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict as to intentional interference with a contract.� See Wangard Partners, Inc. v. Graf, 2006 WI App 115, �37 n.6, 294 Wis. 2d 507, 719 N.W.2d 523 (intentional interference with a contract is established where the plaintiff had a contract with a third party; the defendant interfered with that relationship; the interference was intentional; there was a causal connection between the interference and damages; and the defendant was not privileged to interfere).�
Finally, the Zagrzebskis argue that the jury failed to offset the damages award by the amount Barkoulis would have had to pay under his lease with the Zagrzebskis.� However, we review a jury�s damages award to determine whether the award is within reasonable limits, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to support the damages as found by the jury. �See Cords v. Anderson, 80 Wis. 2d 525, 552-53, 259 N.W.2d 672 (1977).� The sublease introduced at trial states that Roupas agreed to pay Barkoulis a total of $285,000, and that Barkoulis agreed to �give all the options and components of the existing lease� to Roupas.� This evidence supports a finding that, had Roupas performed under the sublease, Barkoulis would have received $285,000 from Roupas and Roupas would have taken over the primary lease.� Thus, the jury award of $248,500 was within reasonable limits and supported by the evidence.�
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment is summarily affirmed pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21(1).� ��
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals
[1] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2011-12 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] Although this case has a long procedural history involving numerous parties and claims, the only claim relevant to this appeal is Barkoulis� intentional interference with a contract claim against the Zagrzebskis.�
[3] After the first trial resulted in a jury verdict in favor of Barkoulis, the circuit court granted a motion by the Zagrzebskis for a new trial.� Barkoulis appealed, and we affirmed the circuit court�s exercise of discretion in granting the Zagrzebskis a new trial.� See Roupas v. Barkoulis, No. 2010AP968, unpublished slip op. (WI App July 31, 2012).�