Cudahy Restoration Foundation LLC v. Gregory Jackson

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688
Telephone (608) 266-1880
TTY: (800) 947-3529
Facsimile (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
DISTRICT I
October 6, 2026
To:
Hon. Reyna I. Morales
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Anna Hodges
Clerk of Circuit Court
Milwaukee County Appeals Processing
Division
Electronic Notice
Cudahy Restoration Foundation LLC
Electronic Notice
Gregory Jackson
2841 N. 45th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53210
Latrivionna Lane
2841 N. 45th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53210
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2024AP1716 Cudahy Restoration Foundation LLC v. Gregory Jackson
(L.C. # 2023SC17333)
Before Donald, C.J.1
Summary disposition orders 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).
Gregory Jackson and Latrivionna Lane (collectively, Jackson) appeal from the order that
ordered that they owed the Respondent, Cudahy Restoration Foundation LLC (hereinafter,
Cudahy) the balance of $9,393.78. Based on our review of the briefs and the record, we
conclude that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21(1).
For the following reasons, we reject Jackson’s arguments and affirm.
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. 2024AP1716
2
This appeal arises from an eviction action initiated by Cudahy against its tenant Jackson
in July 2023. Cudahy sought restitution of the premises based on nonpayment of rent and breach
of the rental agreement. Cudahy also sought damages in the form of past due rent, late fees,
utilities, waste, and holdover damages. At the initial return date on July 24, 2023, a
commissioner granted the first cause of action and issued a writ of restitution.
A contested evidentiary hearing was held on the issue of rent and damages in March
2024, wherein the commissioner entered an oral decision in favor of Jackson and dismissed
Cudahy’s claims. Cudahy subsequently filed a demand for trial, which was held on August 15,
2024. There, the circuit court heard testimony from multiple witnesses and ultimately found in
favor of Cudahy, granting its demand for damages in the amount of $9,185.78, plus costs.
Jackson now appeals.
Ultimately, we reject Jackson’s arguments due to deficiencies in his appellate
submissions. The transcript for the court trial was not requested nor included in the appellate
record. “We are bound by the record as it comes to us.” Fiumefreddo v. McClean, 174 Wis. 2d
10, 26, 496 N.W.2d 226 (Ct. App. 1993). “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
[circuit] court’s ruling.’” Gaethke v. Pozder, 2017 WI App 38, ¶36, 376 Wis. 2d 448, 899
N.W.2d 381 (citation omitted). Without the hearing transcript, Jackson cannot provide this court
with a statement of facts with “appropriate references to the record” and is unable to support his
arguments with citations to the “parts of the record relied on[.]” See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.19(1)(d), (e).

No. 2024AP1716
3
Jackson presents no legal argument to support his appeal, nor does he provide any
citations to the record or applicable law. Instead, Jackson merely restates his version of the facts.
While pro se litigants are generally given some leeway in recognizing that they may not be
familiar with the procedural rules and substantive law that governs their appeal, that leeway is
not unlimited. State ex rel. Wren v. Richardson, 2019 WI 110, ¶25, 389 Wis. 2d 516, 936
N.W.2d 587. “[W]e do not impute to pro se litigants the best argument they could have, but did
not, make.” Id. Thus, Jackson cannot meet his burden of demonstrating that the circuit court
erred. See Gaethke, 376 Wis. 2d 448, ¶36 (stating that it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate
that the circuit court erred). Accordingly, we summarily affirm.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the order is summarily affirmed. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Court of Appeals