William Tadisch v. Steimle Birschbach

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 25, 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. 2019AP817 Cir. Ct. No. 2018SC1692

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT II

WILLIAM TADISCH,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V.

STEIMLE BIRSCHBACH,

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Manitowoc County:
ROBERT DEWANE, Judge. Affirmed.

¶1 GUNDRUM, J.1 William Tadisch appeals pro se from an order of
the circuit court dismissing his small claims case with prejudice and awarding

1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(a) (2017-18).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version unless otherwise noted.
No. 2019AP817

Steimle Birschbach $1950 in attorney fees associated with defending against this
action. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶2 The best we can tell from Tadisch’s one-page brief-in-chief is that he
is upset that Birschbach did not reimburse him for the cost of a survey of some
property. Reviewing Tadisch’s complaint, we learn that he is seeking $400 for the
following reason: “Firm attorney told me I had to get a survey completed. Firm
attorney promised her client would honor the survey. She did not keep her
promise. Survey was not accepted. Looking for $400 I paid for a useless survey.”
Birschbach’s response brief tells us that Birschbach represented Tadisch’s brother
in some transactions related to family property, which transactions Tadisch was
dissatisfied with. Tadisch appears to complain that the circuit court viewed this
case as attempting to relitigate the same matter as in a prior case he filed against
Birschbach, which case was dismissed due to Tadisch’s failure to prosecute.

¶3 Tadisch’s appeal does not get out of the gate because he claims the
circuit court erred in dismissing this case and in its reasoning for doing so but fails
to provide us with a transcript of the proceedings before the court. The court’s
order, from which Tadisch appeals, states that “having heard factual statements
and argument from the parties and counsel,” the court was dismissing the case
with prejudice and ordering Tadisch to pay Birschbach’s attorney fees “for the
reasons set forth on the record.” Tadisch, however, has failed to include the
transcript of the hearing during which the court apparently set forth its reasons.
As we have stated:

It is the appellant’s 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.” Furthermore, on appeal
“it is the burden of the appellant to demonstrate that the

2
No. 2019AP817

[circuit] court erred.” Here, the [appellants] cannot meet
this burden because the circuit court’s February 3 order
does not include the court’s reasoning for denying the
postverdict motion but instead refers back to the reasoning
it articulated on the record at the January 28 hearing.
Simply put, the [appellants] are unable to demonstrate the
circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion where the
court’s reasons for exercising its discretion as it did are not
included in the record.

Gaethke v. Pozder, 2017 WI App 38, ¶36, 376 Wis. 2d 448, 899 N.W.2d 381 (first
alteration in original; citations omitted). As Birschbach notes: “It is impossible
for this Court to even begin an evaluation of this appeal absent that transcript.”
While we recognize that some latitude may be afforded to pro se litigants such as
Tadisch, pro se litigants are still required to abide by the same rules governing
attorneys. See Waushara Cty. v. Graf, 166 Wis. 2d 442, 452, 480 N.W.2d 16
(1992).

¶4 We further affirm because Tadisch has failed to cite to any legal
authority or develop a legal argument in support of his appeal. See Clean Wis.,
Inc. v. PSC, 2005 WI 93, ¶180 n.40, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768 (“We will
not address undeveloped arguments.”); W.H. Pugh Coal Co. v. State, 157 Wis. 2d
620, 634, 460 N.W.2d 787 (Ct. App. 1990) (we do not consider arguments
unsupported by legal authority); see also Industrial Risk Insurers v. American
Eng’g Testing, Inc., 2009 WI App 62, ¶25, 318 Wis. 2d 148, 769 N.W.2d 82
(“[W]e will not abandon our neutrality to develop arguments” for the parties.).

3
No. 2019AP817

Tadisch has failed to carry his burden to demonstrate that the circuit court erred,
and thus we affirm the court’s order in all respects.2

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

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

2
In this appeal, Birschbach has moved “for a finding that this appeal is frivolous.”
Based on the record before us, we are not convinced that the showing has been made that the
appeal is “frivolous” under the relevant statute, WIS. STAT. § 809.25(3). As a result, the motion is
denied. We further observe that while Birschbach requests in her response brief that “the costs
and attorney’s fees incurred to defend against [this appeal] be awarded against” Tadisch,
Birschbach has not identified what those costs and fees might be nor has she requested that we
remand this matter to the circuit court for such a determination to be made.

4