Matthew Steven Barger v. Katie Peters

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.
August 14, 2024
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. 2023AP922 Cir. Ct. No. 2022SC790

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT II

MATTHEW STEVEN BARGER,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

KATIE PETERS,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Washington
County: JAMES K. MUEHLBAUER, Judge. Affirmed.

¶1 LAZAR, J.1 Katie Peters appeals from a judgment of the circuit
court against her and in favor of Matthew Steven Barger. Barger filed this small

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. 2023AP922

claims suit against Peters seeking $8,587.50 for remodeling work that he
completed on an apartment in a building that she purchased sometime after the
work began and now owns.

¶2 After a trial, the circuit court awarded $5,000 to Barger on a theory
of unjust enrichment; there was no written contract containing the terms of the
agreement and significant confusion about whether the previous owner of the
building or Peters was responsible for the work, but the court reasoned that Peters
“ended up with the fixed-up building and … own[s] it, and [Barger is] out of
money.” See, e.g., Buckett v. Jante, 2009 WI App 55, ¶10, 316 Wis. 2d 804, 767
N.W.2d 376 (explaining that the elements of unjust enrichment are that “the
plaintiff conferred a benefit upon the defendant,” the defendant appreciated that
benefit, and the defendant accepted the benefit under circumstances that make it
inequitable to do so “without payment of its value”).

¶3 In her appellate brief, Peters identified two arguments: (1) that her
attorney in the circuit court committed legal malpractice, and (2) that she did not
receive due process because her case was inappropriately consolidated, the judge
was biased against her, and the proceeding in the circuit court was unfair. Barger
responded by asserting that neither of these undeveloped arguments provides
grounds for reversal and pointing out that Peters had not made any objections to
evidence introduced at trial or asserted any mistake of law by the trial court.
Peters did not file a reply brief.

¶4 Arguments not refuted may be deemed conceded. See Charolais
Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Secs. Corp., 90 Wis. 2d 97, 109, 279 N.W.2d 493
(Ct. App. 1979). Moreover, Peters’s initial brief does not conform to the rules of
appellate procedure; for example, it does not discuss applicable law as required by

2
No. 2023AP922

WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(1)(e) and does not develop legal arguments sufficient to
reverse the circuit court. This court will not independently develop a litigant’s
arguments. Vesely v. Security First Nat’l Bank, 128 Wis. 2d 246, 255 n.5, 381
N.W.2d 593 (Ct. App. 1985). For these reasons, the judgment is affirmed.

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

3