Contracts — unjust enrichment

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Contracts — unjust enrichment

This small claims case was initiated as a replevin action by Greg Griswold against Darryl and Roxanne Antoniak. Griswold sought an order requiring the Antoniaks to return to him a flatbed trailer in possession of the Antoniaks. The Antoniaks counterclaimed, alleging that the trailer had been given to them “in lieu of cash payment” for Darryl Antoniak’s recent installation of a duct system at Griswold’s farm in Cross Plains.

After taking evidence at a de novo trial, the circuit court: entered judgment for replevin of the trailer in favor of Griswold; entered a money judgment in the amount of $3,572.21 in favor of the Antoniaks, on the theory of unjust enrichment to Griswold, based on Darryl Antoniak’s installation of the ductwork (including statutory costs of $5 and statutory attorney fees in the amount of $300); and denied Griswold’s petition for waiver of the cost of producing a transcript based on indigency, which Griswold sought pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 814.29(1).

Griswold contends in this pro se appeal that the court erred in its application of the law, and in other ways erroneously exercised its discretion, in concluding that a money judgment for the value of the ductwork should be awarded to the Antoniaks. Griswold also contends that the court erroneously exercised its discretion in: awarding the Antoniaks statutory fees and costs for prevailing on their counterclaim; denying Griswold’s request for a form of “offset” for the Antoniaks’ use of the trailer; and denying Griswold’s petition for waiver of the costs of producing a transcript. This court concludes that each of Griswold’s arguments is either undeveloped or without merit and accordingly affirms. This opinion will not be published.

2012AP1544 Griswold v. Antoniak

Dist IV, Dane County, Remington, J., Blanchard, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Griswold, Greg, pro se; For Respondent: Nelson, Todd T., Milwaukee