Berrada Properties 67 LLC v. Carlos Manuel

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 27, 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. 2023AP2407 Cir. Ct. No. 2023SC30694

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

BERRADA PROPERTIES 67 LLC,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

CARLOS MANUEL,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,

ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS,

DEFENDANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee
County: MICHAEL J. HANRAHAN, Judge. Affirmed.
No. 2023AP2407

¶1 DONALD, P.J.1 Carlos Manuel, pro se, appeals a judgment of
eviction and writ of restitution. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Berrada Properties 67 LLC (“Berrada”) is Manuel’s landlord. On
November 8, 2023, Berrada served Manuel with a five-day notice to pay rent or
vacate the premises. Manuel failed to comply with the five-day notice and
Berrada commenced eviction proceedings. After attempting to obtain personal
service on Manuel, Berrada effectuated service of the eviction summons and
complaint by posting and mailing it. In response, Manuel filed a motion for
dismissal of the complaint.

¶3 On December 14, 2023, a return hearing took place at which Manuel
appeared. There is no transcript of the hearing before us; however the record
reflects that the circuit court ordered a judgment of eviction and a writ of
restitution.

¶4 On December 22, 2023, Manuel subsequently filed a motion seeking
to vacate “the restitution judgment.” That same date, the circuit court held a
hearing on Manuel’s motion. The court construed Manuel’s motion as a request to
vacate the judgment of eviction and the writ of restitution due to improper service
of the summons and complaint. Berrada argued that Manuel waived this argument
by not previously raising it and additionally asserted there was in fact proper
service.

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.

2
No. 2023AP2407

¶5 The circuit court agreed with Berrada, and found that Manuel
waived any objection to service. The court further found that proper service took
place pursuant to the affidavit of service that was filed. Manuel confirmed that he
found the summons and complaint jammed into the door at his rental unit. Manuel
now appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶6 On appeal, Manuel first states that the circuit court lacked personal
jurisdiction. Manuel, however, does not develop a coherent argument in his brief
as to why the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction. Further, to the extent he is
challenging the circuit court’s decision regarding the service of the summons and
complaint, he does not explain why the decision was erroneous. While courts may
afford some leniency to pro se litigants, we will not develop arguments for the
parties. See State v. Romero-Georgana, 2014 WI 83, ¶69, 360 Wis. 2d 522, 849
N.W.2d 668; Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2017 WI App
15, ¶28, 374 Wis. 2d 348, 893 N.W.2d 24.

¶7 In addition, Manuel states that the proceedings were conducted in
violation of WIS. STAT. §§ 801.11, 801.15(4), 801.16(1), 802.01, 802.05,
802.06(2)(a)(l), 805.04, 806.07(1)(a)(b) and several local rules. Manuel, however,
does not develop an argument explaining how each statute and rule was violated.
As a result, we decline to address this argument. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d
627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992).

3
No. 2023AP2407

¶8 Therefore, for the reasons above, we affirm.2

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

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

2
We note that Berrada argues that Manuel’s appeal is moot because the writ of
restitution in this case has expired and Berrada never arranged for the sheriff to execute the writ.
We do not address mootness because we conclude that Manuel’s appeal fails on other grounds.
See Barrows v. American Family Ins. Co, 2014 WI App 11, ¶9, 352 Wis. 2d 436, 842 N.W.2d
508.

4