Mark Edward Sturdevant v. Tammy Jo Sturdevant

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.
June 2, 2023
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. 2021AP2145 Cir. Ct. No. 2019FA155

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

MARK EDWARD STURDEVANT,

PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V.

TAMMY JO STURDEVANT,

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Columbia County:
TROY D. CROSS, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Blanchard, P.J., Kloppenburg, and Fitzpatrick, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
No. 2021AP2145

¶1 PER CURIAM. Mark Sturdevant, pro se, appeals the judgment of
divorce that dissolved his marriage to Tammy Sturdevant. He makes thirteen
separate arguments on appeal, twelve relating to property division and one relating
to maintenance. For the reasons that follow, we reject these arguments and affirm
the judgment.

¶2 The division of property and determination of maintenance in
divorce actions are decisions “entrusted to the discretion of the circuit court, and
are not disturbed on review unless there has been an erroneous exercise of
discretion.” LeMere v. LeMere, 2003 WI 67, ¶13, 262 Wis. 2d 426, 663 N.W.2d
789. The court properly exercises discretion as long as it “‘examined the relevant
facts, applied a proper standard of law, and, using a demonstrated rational process,
reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach.’” Id. (quoted source
omitted).

¶3 Mark’s first argument is that the circuit court erred in the property
division by not using a balance sheet that included all assets, disregarding an
equitable division of property, and causing him undue hardship. In support of this
argument, Mark includes a number of factual assertions that are lettered “A.”
through “O.”

¶4 We reject this first argument because Mark does not provide record
citations for his factual assertions. This court need not consider arguments
unsupported by references to the record. Lechner v. Scharrer, 145 Wis. 2d 667,
676, 429 N.W.2d 491 (Ct. App. 1988). “We have no duty to scour the record to
review arguments unaccompanied by adequate record citation.” Roy v. St. Lukes
Med. Ctr., 2007 WI App 218, ¶10 n.1, 305 Wis. 2d 658, 741 N.W.2d 256.

2
No. 2021AP2145

¶5 We also reject Mark’s first argument because his factual assertions
do not cohere into a developed argument establishing that the circuit court
erroneously exercised its discretion. “[I]t is the burden of the appellant to
demonstrate that the [circuit] court erred,” Seltrecht v. Bremer, 214 Wis. 2d 110,
125, 571 N.W.2d 686 (Ct. App. 1997), and “[w]e may decline to review issues
inadequately briefed,” State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct.
App. 1992). Further, although we make some allowances for pro se litigants, and
have done so for Mark here, our obligation to a pro se litigant does not include
“making an argument for the litigant.” See State ex rel. Harris v. Smith, 220
Wis. 2d 158, 165, 582 N.W.2d 131 (Ct. App. 1998). “We cannot serve as both
advocate and judge.” Id.

¶6 Mark’s second argument is that the appraisals on farmhouse property
were false or otherwise faulty. In support of this argument, Mark provides some
record citations, but is unclear how the cited portions of the record might support
his argument. We therefore reject Mark’s second argument based on a lack of
sufficient record citations. We also reject this argument because the weight and
credibility of evidence such as appraisals were for the circuit court, not this court,
to decide. See Jacobson v. American Tool Cos., Inc., 222 Wis. 2d 384, 390, 588
N.W.2d 67 (Ct. App. 1998) (explaining that “we will accept the circuit court’s
determination as to weight and credibility” of the evidence).

¶7 Mark’s third argument is that the circuit court erred by awarding the
house to Tammy without a more accurate appraisal. We reject this argument for
the same reasons we reject Mark’s second argument.

¶8 Mark’s fourth argument is that Tammy filed a property equalization
worksheet that did not include all of her work benefits. This argument consists of

3
No. 2021AP2145

one paragraph with no record citations. We reject the argument because it is not a
developed argument and lacks record citations.

¶9 Mark’s fifth argument is that the circuit court erred by not dividing a
bank account equally between the parties. This argument consists of one
paragraph with no record citations and a legal citation to the statute governing
property division, WIS. STAT. § 767.61 (2021-22).1 We reject this argument for
the same reasons we reject Mark’s fourth argument. Additionally, we note that,
contrary to what Mark appears to argue, § 767.61 does not require the circuit court
to divide each individual asset equally between the parties. See Pelot v. Pelot, 116
Wis. 2d 339, 346, 342 N.W.2d 64 (Ct. App. 1983) (explaining that a property
division normally consists of determining the total value of the marital estate,
determining what share of that value each spouse should receive, and crediting the
value of each asset assigned to each spouse against that spouse’s share).

¶10 Mark’s sixth argument is that the circuit court erred by not dividing
credit card debt equally between the parties. We reject this argument for the same
reasons we reject Mark’s fifth argument.

¶11 Mark’s seventh argument is that the circuit court erred by not
ordering that he be reimbursed for medical and dental bills. This argument
consists of one paragraph with no record citations. We reject this argument
because it is not a developed argument and lacks record citations.

1
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise
noted.

4
No. 2021AP2145

¶12 Mark’s eighth argument is that the circuit court erred in awarding
Tammy two cars and not awarding him money owed to his brother for another car.
We reject this argument for the same reasons we reject Mark’s seventh argument.

¶13 Mark’s ninth argument is that the circuit court erred in the division
of house escrow funds and capital gains taxes. We reject this argument for the
same reasons we reject Mark’s seventh and eighth arguments.

¶14 Mark’s tenth argument is that the circuit court erred in not awarding
him maintenance. We reject this argument because, as Tammy points out in her
brief, the transcript of the final hearing shows that Mark waived maintenance. The
circuit court did not err by relying on Mark’s waiver.

¶15 Mark’s eleventh argument is that the circuit court erred in its
division of retirement accounts. The argument consists of one paragraph with no
record citations. We reject the argument because it is undeveloped and lacks
record citations.

¶16 Mark’s twelfth argument is that the circuit court erred in not
awarding him inherited property and certain personal property. We reject this
argument for the same reasons we reject Mark’s eleventh argument. We also
reject Mark’s argument relating to inherited property because, as Tammy points
out in her brief, the transcript of the final hearing shows that Mark decided not to
pursue his claim that he should be awarded inherited property.

¶17 Mark’s thirteenth and final argument is that the circuit court erred in
requiring him to sell all of his land. The argument consists of one paragraph with
no record citations. We reject the argument because it is not a developed
argument and lacks record citations. We also reject this argument because, as

5
No. 2021AP2145

Tammy points out in her brief, the transcript of the final hearing shows that Mark
advocated selling the land.

¶18 In the conclusion section of his appellant’s brief, Mark makes
fourteen requests for relief. We do not separately address those requests because
they do not add any developed argument to the thirteen arguments that we have
already discussed.

¶19 In sum, for all of the reasons stated above, we affirm the circuit
court’s judgment.

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS.
STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

6