By: Derek Hawkins//February 3, 2016//
WI Court of Appeals – District I
Case Name: Milwaukee City v. Melvin Shelton
Case No.: 2015AP937
Officials: BRENNAN, J.
Practice Areas: Motion to Reopen
Melvin Shelton, pro se, appeals from the circuit court’s decision to deny his motion to reopen a judgment awarding the City of Milwaukee $6,468.20 for delinquent property taxes and special assessments. Shelton makes various statements for reopening: (1) he did not receive the Summons and Complaint; (2) he suffers from mental illness; (3) the default judgment entered against him was not valid because it was not signed by a judge and instead was signed by Milwaukee Circuit Court Clerk; and (4) his income is exempt. We review a denial of a motion to reopen a judgment for an improper exercise of discretion. It is appellant’s burden to file a copy of the transcript of the circuit court’s decision. See Austin v. Ford Motor Co., 86 Wis. 2d 628, 641, 273 N.W.2d 233 (1979). See also State Bank of Hartland v. Arndt, 129 Wis. 2d 411, 423, 385 N.W.2d 219 (Ct. App. 1986); State v. Holmgren, 229 Wis. 2d 358, 362 n2, 599 N.W.2d 876 (Ct. App. 1999). Shelton failed to do so, saying in his Statement on Transcript that one was “not necessary” for resolution of the appeal. Shelton is wrong. A transcript of the circuit court’s reasoning is necessary for a discretionary review. When an appellant fails to file a transcript, we presume that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion. Fiumefreddo v. McLean, 174 Wis. 2d 10, 26-27, 496 N.W.2d 226 (Ct. App. 1993). We could stop our review with the presumption, but instead, in the interest of completeness, have reviewed the rest of the record and conclude, based on the presumption and record, that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying Mr. Shelton’s motion to reopen, and we affirm.