Document Info

DocketNumber: 2021AP002077

Filed Date: 9/6/2023

Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/9/2024

  •        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.
    September 6, 2023
    A party may file with the Supreme Court a
    Samuel A. Christensen              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.           2021AP2077                                                Cir. Ct. No. 2021SC561
    STATE OF WISCONSIN                                            IN COURT OF APPEALS
    DISTRICT III
    ROBERT ERIK SODERLUND,
    PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
    V.
    MIKE MICHAUD,
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for St. Croix County:
    SCOTT J. NORDSTRAND, Judge. Affirmed.
    ¶1         HRUZ, J.1 Mike Michaud2 appeals the circuit court’s order denying
    his demand for a de novo trial after a court commissioner entered judgment in
    1
    This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(a) (2021-22).
    All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted.
    No. 2021AP2077
    favor of Robert Erik Soderlund in this small claims action. Michaud argues
    that: (1) the court erred when it concluded that he could not seek de novo review
    in the circuit court under WIS. STAT. § 799.207(2); (2) this action should have
    been dismissed under 
    50 U.S.C. § 3931
    ; and (3) he is entitled to relief because the
    Honorable Scott J. Nordstrand has presided over a disproportionate number of his
    cases over the years. We resolve these issues against Michaud and, therefore,
    affirm the court’s order.
    ¶2      Soderlund commenced this small claims action to recover an unpaid
    debt of $4,420 from Michaud. Both parties were and are self-represented. There
    was a trial before the court commissioner. During his sworn testimony, Michaud
    said that he did not contest Soderlund’s claim and asked the court commissioner to
    grant judgment in favor of Soderlund.               The court commissioner awarded
    Soderlund $4,420 for the unpaid debt and $96.50 in filing fees, for a total
    judgment of $4,516.50. Several days later, Michaud filed a demand for a de novo
    trial before the circuit court. The court ruled that Soderlund had no right to
    de novo review under WIS. STAT. § 799.207(2) because he requested that the
    judgment be entered against him. This appeal follows.
    ¶3      Michaud first argues that the circuit court erred when it ruled that he
    could not seek de novo review in the circuit court under WIS. STAT. § 799.207(2).
    We reject this argument. The statutes provide that small claims matters are to be
    decided initially by court commissioners. Sec. 799.207(1). If either party then
    disagrees with the commissioner’s ruling on the merits, that party can seek
    2
    The caption refers to the appellant as Mike Michaud. Other documents in the record
    refer to him as Michael Michaud. We use Mike Michaud in this opinion to be consistent with our
    caption.
    2
    No. 2021AP2077
    de novo review of the commissioner’s decision.                 Sec. 799.207(2).        However,
    during the trial before the court commissioner, Michaud stated under oath: “I
    would ask the Court to grant Mr. Soderlund the $4,420 today.” Michaud therefore
    stipulated to Soderlund’s claim and waived any challenge to it. See WIS. STAT.
    § 807.05; see also WIS. STAT. § 799.04(1).                He did nothing to affirmatively
    advance his case, failed to contest the claim in any manner and, indeed, expressly
    requested the entry of judgment in the specified sum. Under these circumstances,
    the court correctly concluded that there was no contested matter for it to review de
    novo. Michaud waived his right to challenge the court commissioner’s decision
    because he affirmatively asked the court commissioner to rule in Soderlund’s
    favor.3
    ¶4    Further, it is of no help to Michaud that he now advances the notion
    that he only “opted to end the Commissioner’s trial and bring the matter to a full
    trial before the Circuit Court” because two county attorneys were in attendance at
    the hearing and apparently had some negative history with Michaud. It was
    incumbent upon Michaud to make a record to that effect if those circumstances
    were the reason he summarily conceded liability. He did nothing before the court
    commissioner to suggest as such, or to otherwise reserve any rights.
    ¶5    Michaud next argues that this case should have been dismissed
    under 
    50 U.S.C. § 3931
    , a federal statute that provides protection to military
    service members against default judgment.                We reject this argument for two
    reasons. First, Michaud failed to raise this issue in the circuit court, so we will not
    3
    The circuit court stated that Michaud voluntarily defaulted by requesting that judgment
    be entered against him. Michaud’s actions were not a default but, rather, an affirmative waiver of
    his right to contest the court commissioner’s ruling.
    3
    No. 2021AP2077
    consider it. See Tatera v. FMC Corp., 
    2010 WI 90
    , ¶19 n.16, 
    328 Wis. 2d 320
    ,
    
    786 N.W.2d 810
     (“Arguments raised for the first time on appeal are generally
    deemed forfeited.”). Second, this statute applies only to actions in which the
    defendant does not make an appearance. See 
    50 U.S.C. § 3931
    (a) (“This section
    applies to any civil action or proceeding, including any child custody proceeding,
    in which the defendant does not make an appearance.”). Michaud appeared in this
    matter. Therefore, this statute is not applicable.
    ¶6      Finally, Michaud argues that he is entitled to relief because the
    Honorable Scott J. Nordstrand has presided over a disproportionate number of his
    cases over the years.4 Michaud advances no legal theory to support this argument.
    Nor does he advance any fact-based allegations of bias or impropriety. We will
    not review issues that are not developed or are inadequately briefed. State v.
    Pettit, 
    171 Wis. 2d 627
    , 646-47, 
    492 N.W.2d 633
     (Ct. App. 1992). Moreover, as
    Michaud acknowledges, cases in St. Croix County are assigned to circuit court
    judges randomly by local rule. Because Michaud has presented no cognizable
    claim for relief, we reject this argument.
    By the Court.—Order affirmed.
    This    opinion     will   not       be   published.     See    WIS. STAT.
    RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.
    4
    We note that Michaud mistakenly refers to Judge Needham in the argument section of
    his appellate brief. Judge Nordstrand presided over the circuit court proceedings here. Michaud
    properly refers Judge Nordstrand in other sections of his brief.
    4