Court orders new eviction trial for Wood County man

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals District IV ruled a Wood County man should receive a new trial over his eviction from a manufactured home site.

According to court records, James Canfield had a one-year written lease with Thousand Oaks MHC, LLC, an operator of a manufactured homes community, which ended March 31, 2023. At that point, Canfield did not sign a new lease but continued to make rent payments, which Thousand Oaks accepted. On April 13, 2023, the park operator delivered a five-day notice to Canfield to remedy default or vacate, alleging he was in violation of the park’s pet rule. When signing his original lease, Canfield said he had no pets, but it turned out that he kept multiple cats in his home.

On May 9, Thousand Oaks delivered a 28-day notice to Canfield, alleging he breached the terms of the rental agreement, violated community rules and refused to sign a lease agreement. When Canfield did not vacate within 28 days, Thousand Oaks filed the eviction action.

At the hearing, both parties represented themselves with Kathy Meyer appearing for Thousand Oaks. Meyer was sworn in to testify and said she filed a 28-day eviction notice and that Canfield was on a month-to-month lease. Canfield was not allowed to question Meyer or bring up any other information. The court ordered both parties to return the next day after Canfield gathered information on how long it would take for his home to be removed.

In court the next day, Canfield said it would take 10 to 12 weeks for a moving company to remove his home from the site. Although there was no testimony by either party regarding the presence or number of cats Canfield allegedly had in his home, the court proposed two resolutions — Canfield could remove the home earlier than the 10 to 12 weeks he estimated and keep his “12 cats” or he could stay longer and “remove a number of cats until he was able to remove the trailer.”

At the next hearing five days later, the court summarized a stipulation the parties reached where Canfield agreed to remove some of the cats and Thousand Oaks gave him 90 days to remove his home. No written judgment of eviction was issued at that time.

On March 28, 2024, the circuit court entered a written judgment of eviction in favor of Thousand Oaks. Canfield appealed, saying he was not allowed to cross examine Meyer or present his own evidence in the eviction action.

Looking at the evidence, the appeals court said Thousand Oaks’ 28-day notice and eviction complaint alleged two specific grounds for termination — the violation of the pet rule and a refusal to sign a lease agreement. “Yet the record is devoid of any sworn testimony in support of these allegations,” the court wrote. “Rather, the circuit court’s eviction determination was rooted solely in its conclusion that proper notice of termination was provided.”

The appeals court agreed with Canfield that his statutory rights in an eviction case were denied since he was not allowed to present evidence or question Meyer.

The court wrote that Canfield’s ability to present evidence was important since “Thousand Oaks had to establish grounds beyond providing adequate notice to terminate his tenancy.”

In its reply to the appeal, Thousand Oaks said Canfield’s true dispute is with the lease terms, primarily the pet rule, which it argues is beyond the scope of an eviction hearing, and Canfield’s acknowledgment Thousand Oaks has a right to reclaim their property and evict him.

The court ruled neither argument was persuasive since it ignores the requirements in Wisconsin Statute 710.15(5m) regarding the grounds for terminating a resident’s tenancy in a trailer park.

“Although Thousand Oaks did allege statutory grounds for the termination, no evidence was introduced at trial to support the grounds alleged, and Canfield was provided no opportunity to challenge the grounds alleged through cross-examination or by the presentation of his own evidence,” the appeals court wrote.

The appeals court then ordered that Canfield is entitled to an eviction trial that includes an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and enter a defense.