By: Derek Hawkins//December 22, 2015//
WI Court of Appeals – District I
Case Name: Trust of Rene von Schleinitz v. Geoffrey Maclay, Jr.
Case No: 2014AP2123
Officials: Curley, P.J., Kessler, J., and Daniel L. LaRocque, Reserve Judge
Practice Areas: Trusts & Estates – Real Estate
Christine Lindemann appeals a judgment of the circuit court pertaining to real estate owned by the Trust of Rene von Schleinitz. Lindemann, one of three trustees, contends that the circuit court erred when it found that a septic system servicing a home (“Hillside Cottage”) on the Trust property belonged to the homeowners—her parents—rather than to the Trust. She also contends that the circuit court erroneously denied her request for an accounting of Trust expenses and for attorney fees paid for by the Trust. Edith and Geoffrey Maclay, Lindemann’s parents, along with her brother, Geoffrey Maclay Jr. (collectively, “The Maclays”), cross-appeal. The Maclays contend that the circuit court erroneously failed to dismiss Lindemann’s action because Lindemann lacked the authority to unilaterally litigate issues pertaining to the Trust. They also argue that the circuit court erroneously found that the well and water pump supplying water to Hillside Cottage was an improvement to the Trust property, thereby belonging to the Trust and not the home. Finally, the Maclays contend that the circuit court erroneously failed to grant their request for attorney fees. We affirm in part and we reverse in part. We affirm the circuit court’s finding that the septic system servicing Hillside Cottage belonged to the home, as opposed to the Trust. We also affirm the circuit court’s denial of Lindemann’s request for an audit of the Trust, as well as her request for attorney fees. However, we conclude that the circuit court erroneously denied the Maclays’ motion to dismiss Lindemann’s action, erroneously found that the water system supplying water to Hillside Cottage belonged to the Trust, as opposed to the home, and erroneously denied the Maclays’ motion for attorney fees. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s findings on these matters and remand to the circuit court for a determination of the Maclays’ attorney fees.
Recommended for Publication