Veronica Morgan v. Wisconsin Management Company

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 30, 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. 2024AP1888 Cir. Ct. No. 2023SC29632

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

VERONICA MORGAN,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V.

WISCONSIN MANAGEMENT COMPANY,

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

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

¶1 DONALD, J.1 Veronica Morgan, pro se, appeals from a judgment
of the circuit court dismissing her claims against her former landlord’s property

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.
No. 2024AP1888

management company, Wisconsin Management Company (“WMC”). Morgan
argues that the circuit court erred because its decision was not supported by the
evidence. We disagree, and for the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 On March 10, 2021, Morgan entered into a one-year residential lease
agreement with Commonwealth Management Corporation. After the lease’s term
expired, Morgan asked WMC—Commonwealth’s property management
company—if she could rent her apartment on a month-to-month basis instead of
annually due to her concerns about the continued presence of smoke in the
apartment complex. WMC agreed to let Morgan continue renting on a month-to-
month basis.

¶3 Morgan failed to pay the rent due for July and August of 2022. On
August 8, 2022, WMC personally delivered Morgan a five day notice to quit or
pay her unpaid rent balance of $1,746.00 and Morgan subsequently paid $500.00
of the outstanding balance. On August 17, 2022, WMC sent Morgan a “30 Day
Notice of Non-Renewal” which required Morgan to vacate by September 17,
2022, and cited Morgan’s nonpayment of rent as the reason for nonrenewal.
Morgan vacated the apartment on October 24, 2022.

¶4 On July 11, 2023, Morgan filed a summons and complaint alleging
that WMC breached the lease agreement because it failed to enforce the apartment
complex’s no-smoking policy.2 To support her claim, Morgan submitted evidence

2
Morgan filed the summons and complaint in Ozaukee County. WMC moved for a
change of venue which was granted, and the venue was transferred to Milwaukee County.

2
No. 2024AP1888

including the “Smoke Free Property Addendum” to her lease.3 This addendum
provided that the premises were a “no-smoking living environment,” and in
furtherance of this no-smoking policy the landlord would “take reasonable steps to
enforce” it including posting no-smoking signage. The addendum also disclaimed
that the landlord “cannot and does not warranty or promise that the rental premises
or common areas will be free from secondhand smoke,” and that the landlord’s
“ability to police, monitor, or enforce” the no-smoking policy is “dependent in
significant part on voluntary compliance[.]”

¶5 The case proceeded to a court trial during which Morgan maintained
that WMC did nothing to address the tenants smoking within the apartment
complex. Morgan also argued that WMC’s refusal to renew her lease was in
retaliation for asking to rent on a month-to-month basis due to her concerns over
other tenants continuing to smoke in the complex. The circuit court considered the
parties’ arguments, testimony from Morgan, and all the evidence submitted by
both parties which included the Smoke Free Property Addendum, no-smoking
signage, a letter sent from WMC to the tenants of the apartment complex
reminding them about the no-smoking policy, WMC’s ledger detailing Morgan’s
payments, and communications between Morgan and WMC.

¶6 The circuit court found that WMC enforced the no-smoking policy
and cannot be held liable for the actions of tenants outside of its control. The
court also considered and rejected Morgan’s retaliatory eviction argument. The

3
We note that the Smoke Free Property Addendum in the record is unsigned and dated
February 28, 2022. At trial when presented with the Smoke Free Property Addendum Morgan
confirmed that “this was the addendum to [her] lease” and neither party disputed its applicability
before the circuit court.

3
No. 2024AP1888

court stated that retaliatory eviction under WIS. STAT. § 704.45 does not apply
here because there were no issues with untenantability or complaints about
building or housing codes that would be required to support a retaliatory eviction
claim. The court further found that Morgan’s failure to timely pay rent was the
cause of the nonrenewal.

¶7 Morgan appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶8 On appeal Morgan challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the circuit court’s decision.

¶9 We independently review whether the circuit court’s factual findings
constitute a breach of contract. Prent Corp. v. Martek Holdings, Inc., 2000 WI
App 194, ¶9, 238 Wis. 2d 777, 618 N.W.2d 201. We will not disturb the circuit
court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. WIS. STAT. § 805.17(2).
“[A] finding of fact is clearly erroneous when ‘it is against the great weight and
clear preponderance of the evidence.’” Phelps v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis.,
2009 WI 74, ¶39, 319 Wis. 2d 1, 768 N.W.2d 615 (citation omitted). “We will
search the record for evidence to support the findings that the [circuit] court made,
not for findings that the [circuit] court could have made but did not.” Global Steel
Prods. Corp. v. Ecklund, 2002 WI App 91, ¶10, 253 Wis. 2d 588, 644 N.W.2d
269.

¶10 Upon review of the record, we conclude that the circuit court’s
findings are sufficiently supported by the evidence. At trial, WMC presented a
no-smoking sign that it had placed in the apartment complex as well as an email
from Morgan recognizing that the sign had been hung up. WMC also presented an

4
No. 2024AP1888

email it had sent to Morgan in response to her concerns in which WMC stated that
it “has been doing everything possible to eliminate smoking” and that “[f]rom our
discussion, it seems the issue occurs after the on-site staff is gone. If you [k]now
specifically where it is coming from, please let us know.” Additionally, the record
contains a copy of a letter dated November 1, 2021, that WMC sent to its tenants.
The letter informed the tenants that WMC was receiving complaints about
smoking in the apartment complex and emphasized that smoking was a violation
of the tenants’ leases.

¶11 Morgan argues that “if the policy was enforced the property would
have been smoke free” and that “the entire property is stated in the lease to be
smoke free.” However, the only mention of a smoke free policy in the lease is in
the Smoke Free Property Addendum which also disclaims that the landlord
“cannot and does not warranty or promise that the rental premises or common
areas will be free from secondhand smoke.” Ultimately, the record supports that
WMC took the requisite reasonable steps to enforce the no smoking policy even if
those steps were not entirely successful in preventing tenants from continuing to
smoke in violation of the policy. Thus we conclude that the evidence supports the
circuit court’s decision.

¶12 The evidence also supports the circuit court’s rejection of Morgan’s
retaliatory eviction claim under WIS. STAT. § 704.45.4 The August 17, 2022

4
WISCONSIN STAT. § 704.45(1) prohibits the landlord from refusing to renew a lease
based on the landlord’s retaliation against the tenant for “[m]aking a good faith complaint about a
defect in the premises to an elected public official or a local housing code enforcement agency”;
complaining about the landlord’s failure to maintain the tenantability of the premises pursuant to
WIS. STAT. § 704.07, “or a local housing code applicable to the premises”; or “[e]xercising a
legal right relating to residential tenancies.” See also WIS. ADMIN. CODE § ATCP 134.09(5)
(through August 2025).

5
No. 2024AP1888

nonrenewal notice WMC sent to Morgan specified that Morgan’s failure to timely
pay rent was the reason for the nonrenewal, and Morgan admitted at trial that she
did not pay her rent for July and did not fully pay her rent for August.5 Thus, the
court’s finding that the nonrenewal was based on Morgan’s failure to timely pay
rent was supported by the evidence.6

¶13 Finally, for the first time on appeal, Morgan states that she never
agreed to the Smoke Free Property Addendum and instead how WMC advertised
her apartment constituted a guarantee that her apartment complex would be smoke
free. We generally do not consider arguments that were not raised before the
circuit court. State v. Caban, 210 Wis. 2d 597, 604, 563 N.W.2d 501 (1997).
Furthermore, there is no evidence of WMC’s advertisements in the record.
Therefore, we do not consider Morgan’s arguments premised on WMC’s
advertising further. See South Carolina Equip., Inc. v. Sheedy, 120 Wis. 2d 119,
125-26, 353 N.W.2d 63 (Ct. App. 1984) (explaining that this court can only
review the matters of record in the circuit court and cannot consider new material
presented in appellate briefs). To the extent that Morgan has raised additional
arguments that we have not expressly addressed above, including references to
arguments regarding fraud, we reject her arguments as undeveloped and not
properly supported by legal authority. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-
47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992).

5
We note that Morgan disputed the precise amount she owed WMC including whether
she owed any money for the October rent. The exact amount Morgan owed WMC is immaterial
to the issues on appeal.
6
Morgan also argues that WMC’s counsel “willfully lied, misrepresented and misled”
the circuit court because the court’s interpretation of the evidence surrounding her retaliatory
eviction claim was erroneous. Because we conclude that the record supports the court’s finding,
we reject Morgan’s argument.

6
No. 2024AP1888

CONCLUSION

¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the circuit court’s
decision is supported by the evidence in the record. Accordingly, we affirm.

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

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

7