Civil Procedure-Frivolous Appeal

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: James Luecke v. Huckstorf Diesel Pump & Injector Service, Inc.

Case No.: 2023AP000966

Officials: White, C.J.

Focus: Civil Procedure-Frivolous Appeal

James Luecke and Talia Luecke (the Lueckes), pro se, appeal a small claims money judgment against them in favor of Huckstorf Diesel Pump & Injector Service, Inc. (Huckstorf). The Lueckes argue that the circuit court lacked the competency to have a trial and that the circuit court erred by relying on evidence presented by Huckstorf, and by denying the Lueckes the opportunity to call Huckstorf’s counsel as a witness. Based on our review of the briefs and record, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision in favor of Huckstorf Diesel Pump & Injector Service, Inc. (Huckstorf) against James and Talia Luecke (the Lueckes) in a small claims case. The Lueckes, representing themselves, appealed a judgment that ordered them to pay Huckstorf $2,015.17 plus attorney fees, costs, and disbursements. They argued that the circuit court lacked the competency to conduct a trial, relied on unreliable evidence, and wrongfully prevented them from calling Huckstorf’s counsel as a witness.

The Appeals Court found the Lueckes’ arguments meritless due to their failure to provide necessary trial transcripts, which are essential for appellate review. Without these transcripts, the court must assume that the missing materials support the circuit court’s ruling. Additionally, the Lueckes did not preserve their arguments at the trial level, further undermining their appeal. The Appeals Court also dismissed the Lueckes’ invocation of the plain error doctrine, concluding they did not demonstrate any fundamental, obvious, or substantial errors warranting relief.

Moreover, Huckstorf’s motion for sanctions was granted because the Lueckes’ appeal was deemed frivolous. The Appeals Court noted that the Lueckes should have known their appeal lacked any reasonable basis in law or equity, particularly after being warned about the necessity of trial transcripts. The case was remanded to the circuit court to determine the amount of costs and reasonable attorney fees Huckstorf incurred due to the appeal.

Affirmed and remanded.

Decided 05/14/24

Full Text