Attorney Laura Schwefel v. Stephanie Przytarski

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
November 12, 2019
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.
Appeal No. 2019AP52 Cir. Ct. No. 2012FA5081
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I
IN RE THE CONTEMPT MOTIONS FOR FAILURE TO PAY GAL FEES IN
PRZYTARSKI V. VALLEJOS:
ATTORNEY LAURA SCHWEFEL,
PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
V.
STEPHANIE M. PRZYTARSKI, GARY KRAMSCHUSTER AND
SANDRA KRAMSCHUSTER,
RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
CAROLINA STARK, Judge. Affirmed.
No. 2019AP52
¶1 KESSLER, J.1 Stephanie M. Przytarski, pro se, and Gary and
Sandra Kramschuster, pro se, appeal an order of the circuit court which
(1) established guardian ad litem (GAL) fees for the GAL in an ongoing custody
dispute, and (2) refused to sanction the GAL for filing contempt motions against
Przytarski and the Kramschusters. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 This case has been before this court on numerous other occasions. It
has a complicated procedural history. The following facts are established by our
previous decisions, as well as the circuit court’s thorough summation of the facts
in the order from which this appeal is taken.
¶3 This case originated in Waukesha County with the initiation of a
paternity action by the State. The court appointed Laura Schwefel as the GAL for
the child at issue. The matter was moved to Milwaukee County and the
Milwaukee County Circuit Court also appointed Schwefel as the GAL. The
circuit court did not set an hourly rate of pay for Schwefel, but instead ordered as
follows:
The hourly compensation rate for the GAL shall be as
established by the GAL in writing, and subject to the
approval of the judge. While the minimum hourly
compensation rate for the GAL approved by the Family
Court is $100 per hour, the actual compensation rate for the
GAL may reasonably exceed $100 per hour. Objections to
the GAL’s hourly rate shall be raised prior to or at the first
court hearing after appointment or are deemed waived.
Unless otherwise ordered by the judge, any amounts due to
the GAL, over and above the deposit, shall be paid equally
1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2) (2017-18). All
references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version unless otherwise noted.
2
No. 2019AP52
by the parties. If the court determines that one party is
indigent, the non-indigent party will be liable for the
entirety of the GAL fees but may seek an order requiring
reasonable reimbursement from the indigent party. GAL
fees are considered in the nature of support.
The order also required each party to pay one-half of a deposit of $1500 by August
31, 2013, and required the parties to pay Schwefel directly.
¶4 In a notification to the circuit court and the parties, Schwefel
requested a rate of $200 per hour. Przytarski filed a motion to vacate the order
appointing Schwefel as the GAL. At a hearing on August 6, 2013, the circuit
court denied Przytarski’s motion and set Schwefel’s hourly GAL rate at $175.
Schwefel submitted a proposed written order memorializing the court’s ruling that
the GAL hourly rate was set at $175. Przytarski objected to many aspects of the
proposed order, but did not specifically object to the GAL’s hourly rate. The
circuit court did not sign the order. Consequently, no written order regarding the
GAL’s hourly rate was issued. On November 14, 2014, however, the circuit court
issued the following order regarding the payment of GAL fees:
The Guardian ad Litem fees shall be divided as follows:
25% Maternal Grandparents, 35% Father, and 40% Mother.
Each party shall pay a minimum of $200 per month
towards their share of the GAL fees commencing on
December 1, 2014.
¶5 Throughout the course of their participation in the Milwaukee
County case, Przytarski and the Kramschusters filed numerous motions objecting
to Schwefel’s appointment as the GAL and to the payment of her GAL fees. The
circuit court repeatedly and consistently denied these motions.
¶6 As relevant to this appeal, Schwefel filed multiple motions for
contempt against Przytarski and the Kramschusters because of their failure to pay
the GAL fees. In a written order issued on December 10, 2018, the circuit court
3
No. 2019AP52
broke down the time periods Schwefel served as GAL, the amounts paid by the
parties, and the outstanding amounts owed to Schwefel:
As a result of [the circuit court’s] appointment of the GAL,
during the period of time from July 28, 2013 through
January 19, 2016, Attorney Schwefel performed 113.2
hours of work reasonably related to her duties as the GAL.
Therefore, at a rate of $175 per hour, the total GAL fees
owed in this Milwaukee County case for that period of time
are $19,810.
Pursuant to [the circuit court’s] order on November 14,
2014, Ms. Przytarski is responsible for paying 40% of this
amount ($7924) and Mr. and Mrs. Kramschuster are
responsible for paying 25% of this amount ($4952.50).
During the period of time from July 30, 2013 through
September 11, 2018, Ms. Przytarski paid Attorney
Schwefel a total of $8150 for GAL fees. Attorney
Schwefel applied $1800 of those payments towards the
balance [she] owed for GAL fees in the Waukesha County
case. Therefore, only $6350 of those payments is applied
towards the GAL fees in this Milwaukee County case for
work performed during the period of time from July 28,
2013 through January 19, 2016; and [Przytarski] did not
make any overpayment of GAL fees in this Milwaukee
County case.
During the period of time from December 3, 2014 through
September 1, 2015, Mr. and Ms. Kramschuster paid
Attorney Schwefel a total of $1800 for GAL fees.
Consequently, they still owe $3152.50 for the GAL fees in
[the] Milwaukee County case for work performed during
the period of time from July 28, 2013 through January 19,
2016; and they did not make any overpayment of GAL fees
in this Milwaukee County case.
(Footnotes omitted.)
¶7 In its December 2018 order, the circuit court withheld making a final
decision on Schwefel’s contempt motions, but ordered:
• Schwefel to be compensated at an hourly rate of $175
for all of the work performed as a GAL in the
Milwaukee County matter;
4
No. 2019AP52
• Przytarski to pay $1574 in full for GAL work
performed during the time period of July 28, 2013,
through January 19, 2016;
• Przytarski to make a payment of $200 no later than
January 5, 2018. The court stated that it would decide
how the balance was to be paid at a hearing on January
15, 2019;
• Przytarski and the Kramschusters to file financial
disclosure statements;
• the Kramschusters to pay Schwefel $3152.50 in GAL
fees for the time period of July 28, 2013, through
January 19, 2016; and
• the Kramschusters to make a payment of $500 no later
than January 5, 2018. The court stated that it would
decide how the balance was to be paid at a hearing on
January 15, 2019.
The court also stated that Schwefel did not owe the parties any reimbursement or
return of their GAL fees.
¶8 Przytarski and the Kramschusters filed a notice of appeal2 prior to
the January 15, 2019 hearing, as well as a motion to stay the December 2018 order
pending resolution of the appeal by this court. At the January 15, 2019 hearing,
the circuit court granted the motion to stay. This appeal follows.
DISCUSSION
¶9 Przytarski and the Kramschusters make numerous arguments on
appeal. We are not bound by the manner in which a party frames the issues. See
2
The circuit court issued two orders on December 10, 2018. One order dealt directly
with the GAL fees and Schwefel’s contempt motions, the other dealt with an array of other
motions filed by Przytarski and the Kramschusters, including a motion for judicial
disqualification, numerous “[o]bjections,” and motions for sanctions against Schwefel. To the
extent Przytarski and the Kramschusters appeal any aspect of the motion not dealing with GAL
fees, we affirm the circuit court, as the record does not support any other outcome.
5
No. 2019AP52
Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill. v. Staff Right, Inc., 2006 WI App 59, ¶8, 291 Wis. 2d
249, 714 N.W.2d 219. As relevant to the order on appeal, we summarize their
arguments as follows: (1) the circuit court erred in issuing the directives of its
December 2018 order; (2) Schwefel lacked standing in the circuit court to pursue
contempt motions and now lacks standing on appeal; and (3) Schwefel should be
subject to sanctions for bringing multiple contempt motions against Przytarski and
the Kramschusters. We reject all of Przytarski’s and the Kramschusters’
arguments.
I. The Circuit Court’s Order
¶10 Przytarski’s and the Kramschusters’ arguments, as best as we can
tell, are based primarily on the circuit court’s factual findings. They contend that
there is “no court order specifying in dollars and cents fees to be paid to the
guardian ad litem,” but they also acknowledge that the order on appeal does
specify a “dollars and cents fee,” which they somehow contend goes against the
best interest of the child. Their arguments are conclusory and unsupported by
sound legal analysis.
¶11 We accept the circuit court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly
erroneous and we search the record to support the court’s findings of fact. See
Wilcox v. Estate of Hines, 2014 WI 60, ¶15, 355 Wis. 2d 1, 849 N.W.2d 280.
¶12 The record belies any claim that the amount of GAL fees owed was
not “specified,” and the appellants’ conclusory arguments to the contrary are
meritless. On August 6, 2013, the circuit court established Schwefel’s hourly rate
at $175. Although the court did not sign the order memorializing that amount, it
later issued an order dividing the percentages owed by each party. Clearly the
court contemplated that the parties use the hourly rate ordered at the August 6,
6
No. 2019AP52
2013 hearing. Moreover, the order underlying this appeal also specifically states
Schwefel’s hourly rate of $175, along with the amount of hours worked, the
relevant time periods, the amounts paid, and the amounts outstanding. The record
is abundantly clear on the issue of GAL fees owed and not yet paid by the
appellants.
¶13 Moreover, the appellants’ argument that Schwefel failed to establish
an hourly rate of compensation is unsupported by the record. Schwefel filed a
proposed order following the circuit court’s August 6, 2013 hearing, and also filed
numerous contempt motions in which the amount of unpaid compensation was
clear. The record clearly supports a finding that Schwefel tried—ad nauseam—to
retrieve the fees she earned at the hourly rate approved by the court early on in
these proceedings. Any argument to the contrary lacks merit.
II. Standing
¶14 Przytarski and the Kramschusters contend that Schwefel lacked
standing in the circuit court and lack standing in this court because they claim
Schwefel’s contempt motions are separate from her representation of Przytarski’s
child.
¶15 “The central standing question is whether ‘a party has a sufficient
stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that
controversy.’” See Norquist v. Zeuske, 211 Wis. 2d 241, 247, 564 N.W.2d 748(1997) (citations omitted). Standing presents a question of law for our de novo
review. See Chenequa Land Conservancy, Inc. v. Village of Hartland, 2004 WI
App 144, ¶12, 275 Wis. 2d 533, 685 N.W.2d 573. It is undisputed that the circuit
court ordered Przytarski and the Kramschusters to pay GAL fees for services
rendered. They have not paid. Schwefel is an aggrieved party entitled to seek a
7
No. 2019AP52
judicial remedy for the appellants’ failure to abide by an order which Schwefel is
entitled to enforce. See Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Mills, 142 Wis. 2d 215, 217-18,
418 N.W.2d 14 (Ct. App. 1987) (explaining a person is “aggrieved,” and therefore
has standing to appeal, if the judgment in question “bears directly and injuriously
upon his or her interests,” such that the judgment “adversely affect[s]” the person
“in some appreciable manner”). Schwefel does not lack standing in either the
circuit court or with this court. The appellants’ argument to the contrary, under
the circumstances here, are meritless.
III. Sanctions
¶16 Finally, the record does not in any way support Przytarski’s and the
Kramschusters’ request to issue sanctions against Schwefel for filing contempt
motions to collect the funds to which she was entitled. The record demonstrates
that Schwefel diligently pursued amounts owed to her and used every judicial
resource at her disposal to overcome Przytarski’s and the Kramschusters’
longstanding attempts to avoid paying court-ordered fees for Schwefel’s work as
an officer of the court.
¶17 To the extent Przytarski and the Kramschusters believe they have
raised issues not addressed by this decision, we conclude that their arguments are
not developed and we do not address them further. See State v. Waste Mgmt. of
Wis., Inc., 81 Wis. 2d 555, 564, 261 N.W.2d 147 (1978) (“An appellate court is
8
No. 2019AP52
not a performing bear, required to dance to each and every tune played on an
appeal.”).3
¶18 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the circuit court.
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE
809.23(1)(b)4.
3
We caution the appellants that continuously filing appeals lacking legal reasoning and
developed arguments potentially subjects them to costs for filing frivolous appeals and wastes
valuable judicial resources.
9