March Vol. 5, No. 2

Casenotes

Wisconsin

Vendor and Purchaser

Dugan v Dugan, 2010 AP 331 (Wis Ct App, 2011).

Facts: Plaintiff Bernard Beyer filed a suit for "deliberate misrepresentation, land title fraud, theft and conspiracy to defraud" against Jeff Dugan, Joseph Moore and Stewart Title Guaranty Company. Beyer owned a vacant lot that he wanted to sell to Moore. While negotiating the sale Beyer went to prison, although the court did not disclose the reason. In anticipation of his incarceration, Beyer transferred the lot to his friend Jeff Dugan by warranty deed. (Kevin Dugan is a named plaintiff in the case but did not appeal and the court's opinion does not mention who he is or what relationship he had to the case). Nine months later, Beyer attempted to sell the lot to Moore but Moore discovered during the title search that the lot was actually owned by Jeff Dugan so he purchased it from Dugan.

Beyer then filed suit against Dugan, essentially claiming he converted the property, against Moore and against Stewart Title Guaranty Co for issuing title insurance. Beyer represented himself, pro se. He filed "a virtual plethora of motions and other pleadings" all of which were denied by the trial court. The court granted summary judgment to Moore, dismissed Stewart Title for lack of personal jurisdiction, and a jury found in favor of Dugan. Beyer appealed all of the decisions.

Holding: Affirmed. It is unclear whether there was any merit to Beyer's claims because his lack of attorney proved to be his downfall. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals dismissed all of Beyer's arguments on appeal because of mistakes he made.

First, Stewart Title was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction because it was not properly served. Beyer only served an independent agent of the company who had no authority to accept service on its behalf. Next, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Moore because Beyer did not file any response in opposition to Moore's summary judgment motion. On appeal, he provided no transcripts and filed no brief. Because Beyer made no argument, the court held that the grant of summary judgment was proper. "Quite simply" the court stated, "Beyer terminated his interest in the property" and Moore did nothing wrong by purchasing it from Dugan.

Concerning Dugan, Beyer argued, among other things, that the court erred in accepting the jury's verdict. However, the Court of Appeals found that Beyer did not properly raise the issue on appeal. Instead of providing a brief, Beyer simply referenced circuit court documents and argued that the circuit court's acceptance of the jury verdict was an error "for reasons stated elsewhere." The court said that these arguments were "inadequate" and it "decline[d] to consider them." Again, Beyer submitted no transcripts of the jury trial and under Wisconsin law, any missing material is assumed to support the circuit court's decision.

Issue Home

Print this page