Court Error – Sanctions

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: Chad Webster, et al. v. Daniel Krizan, et al.

Case No.: 2017AP1890; 2017AP2147

Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.

Focus: Court Error – Sanctions

These consolidated appeals present two issues following our remand in Webster v. Krizan, No. 2016AP25, unpublished slip op. (WI App Mar. 28, 2017) (hereinafter, Krizan I). In that decision, we held that Chad and Brenda Webster’s offer to purchase certain of Daniel, Beverly, Scott and Dale Krizan’s farm property held priority over a subsequent offer to purchase the same property by Travis and Ronald Krizan. Id., ¶8. In so holding, we rejected the Intervening Krizans’ unjust enrichment argument, noting the circuit court’s order required both that the closing on the Websters’ offer “proceed with dispatch” and that $430,000 the Intervening Krizans paid in connection with their secondary offer was to be returned to them out of the net proceeds from the Webster closing. Id., ¶9.

Following our decision, the Intervening Krizans filed a motion in the circuit court seeking statutory interest on the $430,000 from the date of payment. On appeal, the Intervening Krizans argue the circuit court erred by denying that motion, essentially asserting it was unfair for the Owner Krizans to have the interest-free use of their money for several years. We conclude the circuit court properly exercised its discretion by denying the Intervening Krizans’ motion. Because the Intervening Krizans have maintained throughout this litigation that their offer should be enforced—including in their various complaints, in their appellate arguments in Krizan I, and in their post-Krizan I filings—we agree with the circuit court that their entitlement to the repayment of the $430,000 was never sufficiently certain to warrant an award of statutory interest. We therefore affirm the order declining to award statutory interest.

The circuit court also granted a motion for sanctions against the Intervening Krizans’ attorney, J. Drew Ryberg (“Ryberg”). For a variety of reasons, Ryberg contends the court erred by sanctioning him. We agree with the circuit court that Ryberg’s post-Krizan I motion seeking to bar the closing on the Websters’ offer was frivolous as it merely sought to relitigate issues already decided by this court. We affirm the order for sanctions—an award of attorney fees to the Websters for their costs incurred in defending against the motion—but we decline the Websters’ request to impose additional sanctions against Ryberg for filing a frivolous appeal.

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.