Margie Adela Albizures v. Ravi Parkash

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.
November 26, 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. 2024AP983 Cir. Ct. No. 2023SC25168

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

MARGIE ADELA ALBIZURES,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

RAVI PARKASH,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

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

¶1 DONALD, P.J.1 Ravi Parkash, pro se, appeals a small claims
judgment entered in favor of Margie Adela Albizures. For the reasons discussed
below, we affirm.

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.
No. 2024AP983

BACKGROUND

¶2 On September 14, 2023, Albizures filed a complaint against her
former landlord, Parkash, seeking the return of her security deposit.

¶3 On January 16, 2024, an evidentiary hearing took place before a court
commissioner. The commissioner found in favor of Albizures.

¶4 Parkash requested a trial. On March 29, 2024, a bench trial took place.
The circuit court ordered a judgment of $2,400 in favor of Albizures.

¶5 Parkash appealed. Subsequently, Parkash filed a statement on
transcript indicating that transcripts were not necessary for the prosecution of the
appeal. No transcripts of the evidentiary hearing before the court commissioner or
the bench trial appear in the record before this court.

DISCUSSION

¶6 On appeal, Parkash complains that Albizures and another tenant
vacated the property at issue without proper notice, returned the keys late, and left
damage and trash on the premises. Parkash appears to contend that the court
commissioner and the circuit court failed to review the images he provided. Parkash
also contends that the circuit court failed to give him “much chance to speak.”

¶7 As stated above, the record does not contain any transcripts. As the
appellant, it was Parkash’s responsibility to ensure that the appellate record is
complete for this court. See Fiumefreddo v. McLean, 174 Wis. 2d 10, 26, 496
N.W.2d 226 (Ct. App. 1993). When an appellate record is incomplete, this court
must assume that the missing material supports a lower court’s ruling. Id. at 27.

2
No. 2024AP983

¶8 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. Accordingly,
in the absence of any transcripts, we must affirm as we have no means to evaluate
the evidence presented or the commissioner’s or circuit court’s reasoning.2

¶9 Therefore, for the reasons above, we affirm.

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

2
We note that Albizures did not file a response brief in this court. The rules of appellate
procedure require the timely filing of a response brief. WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(3). When a
respondent fails to file a response brief, this court oftentimes summarily reverses in the appellant’s
favor because the failure to file a respondent’s brief “tacitly concedes” error. State ex rel.
Blackdeer v. Township of Levis, 176 Wis. 2d 252, 260, 500 N.W.2d 339 (Ct. App. 1993) (citations
omitted). Here, however, we do not find it appropriate to summarily reverse given the insufficient
record. As the seeker of appellate review, Parkash was responsible for ensuring that there is a
sufficient record to review the issues he raises and he has failed to do so.

3