By: Derek Hawkins//June 22, 2021//
WI Court of Appeals – District IV
Case Name: Kevin A. McLain v. Patrick J. Keenan, et al.,
Case No.: 2019AP2337
Officials: Fitzpatrick, P.J., Blanchard, and Nashold, JJ.
Focus: Tortious Interference – Breach of Contract
This lawsuit arises out of the sale of land by Patrick Keenan to Kevin McLain and McLain’s subsequent sale of that land to Glenn Lorenz and Carol Lorenz. McLain brought suit against Keenan for Keenan’s tortious interference with McLain’s contract to sell the land to Lorenz. Keenan asserted as an affirmative defense to McLain’s cause of action that McLain agreed prior to the purchase of the land from Keenan that McLain would grant Keenan a right of first refusal over any future sale of the land by McLain, but that Keenan was not given an opportunity to exercise his purported right of first refusal to purchase the land from McLain. Keenan also counterclaimed against McLain regarding his alleged right of first refusal.
The Vernon County Circuit Court granted partial summary judgment to McLain on Keenan’s counterclaim. The circuit court later denied Keenan’s motion to amend his pleadings to include new claims against McLain. A trial to the court was held on McLain’s tortious interference with a contract claim. The circuit court determined that Keenan tortiously interfered with McLain’s contract with Lorenz and granted a money judgment in favor of McLain.
Keenan makes four primary arguments on appeal. First, Keenan argues that the circuit court erred in granting partial summary judgment to McLain on Keenan’s counterclaim. Second, Keenan argues that the circuit court erred in denying his request to amend his pleadings. Third, Keenan argues that the circuit court erred in determining that he tortiously inferred with McLain’s contract with Lorenz. Fourth, Keenan argues that written findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the circuit court were “untimely.” McLain cross-appeals, arguing that the circuit court erred in not awarding to him his actual attorney fees incurred in this action. We reject Keenan’s and McLain’s arguments and affirm the rulings of the circuit court.