Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-3077 Riester v. Schleicher, et al.

By: dmc-admin//November 26, 2001//

00-3077 Riester v. Schleicher, et al.

By: dmc-admin//November 26, 2001//

Listen to this article

Arnold and Diane Schleicher appeal a judgment granting Jeffrey and Jone Riester specific performance on an option to purchase real estate. The trial court separated this action from the Schleicher’s third party misrepresentation action against the real estate agent who arranged the transaction. The Schleichers argue that: (1) the trial court should have conducted a single jury trial on all claims rather than trying the equity claims first to the court; (2) they were denied a fair trial because they did not have adequate notice that the equity action would be tried to the court; and (3) the court improperly allowed the real estate agent’s attorney to examine witnesses in this trial.

Because we conclude that the trial court properly separated the claims and tried the equity issues without a jury, and the Schleichers have not established any prejudice from lack of notice that the claims would be tried to the court or from the real estate agent’s attorney’s participation, we affirm the judgment.

This opinion will not be published.

Dist III, Door County, Diltz, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys:

For Appellant: John F. Scanlan, Sturgeon Bay

For Respondent: David L. Weber, Sturgeon Bay; Jon Robert Pinkert, Sturgeon Bay

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests