Shellie Townsend v. Cyme L. Cook

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.
February 25, 2025
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. 2024AP1183 Cir. Ct. No. 2023SC24132

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

SHELLIE TOWNSEND,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V.

CYME L. COOK,

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
REYNA I. MORALES, Judge. Affirmed.

¶1 GEENEN, J.1 Shellie Townsend, pro se, appeals the circuit court’s
dismissal of her small claims action against Cyme L. Cook. Townsend’s brief is
difficult to understand but, because she appears to reargue the facts of the

1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(a) (2023-24).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version unless otherwise noted.
No. 2024AP1183

underlying matter, we assume that she believes the circuit court erred when it
dismissed her case. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Townsend filed an action in small claims court seeking money
damages against Cook. From the complaint, it appears that the dispute arises from
work performed at Townsend’s home by Cook, a home repair contractor, through
his business. Townsend alleges that the work was never finished and that Cook
caused various damages to Townsend’s bathroom.

¶3 Following a bench trial, the circuit court dismissed Townsend’s case.
Townsend now appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶4 Townsend is the appellant. On appeal, the appellant bears the
burden of showing that the circuit court erred. Gaethke v. Pozder, 2017 WI App
38, ¶36, 376 Wis. 2d 448, 899 N.W.2d 381. The appellant also has the
“responsibility to ensure completion of the appellate record and ‘when an
appellate record is incomplete in connection with an issue raised by the appellant,
we must assume that the missing material supports the trial court’s ruling.’” State
v. McAttee, 2001 WI App 262, ¶5 n.1, 248 Wis. 2d 865, 637 N.W.2d 774 (citation
omitted). Additionally, an appellant must sufficiently develop their arguments for
this court’s consideration. See Barakat v. DHSS, 191 Wis. 2d 769, 786, 530
N.W.2d 392 (Ct. App. 1995).

¶5 Townsend’s brief contains factual assertions regarding her dealings
with Cook and his business, and details her efforts to have a minor bathroom
repair completed to her satisfaction. However, Townsend does not make any

2
No. 2024AP1183

argument about those facts, and does not explain how those facts relate to the facts
that the circuit court found, and does not explain how the facts demonstrate that
the circuit court erred in the legal conclusion it reached when dismissing the case.
This court need not address an argument that is insufficiently developed, Barakat,
191 Wis. 2d at 786, and we will not develop an argument on a litigant’s behalf,
State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 647, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992).

¶6 Furthermore, this court’s review is “limited to the record[.]”
Schimke v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transp. Co., 34 Wis. 2d 317, 320, 149
N.W.2d 659 (1967). Townsend did not obtain, or at least did not include, the
transcript of the bench trial in the record. If a transcript from a proceeding is
missing from the appellate record, the appellate court assumes that the missing
transcript would support any decision that the circuit court made during that
proceeding. Fiumefreddo v. McLean, 174 Wis. 2d 10, 27, 496 N.W.2d 226 (Ct.
App. 1993). We do so here and, on that ground, affirm the circuit court’s
dismissal of Townsend’s claim.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

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

3