No decisions were released.

• Attorney Fees/ Arbitration/ Settlement/ Interest/ Statutes
  
  Stewart v. Farmers Insurance
  Docket: 2008AP001605 08-25-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Edley H. and Lurline E. Stewart (Stewarts) appeal from a judgment and an amended order for judgment issued after the trial court refused to award them actual attorney fees and other expenses following their acceptance of Farmers Insurance Group's, d/b/a Fire Insurance Exchange, d/b/a Farmers Insurance Exchange (collectively referred to as Farmers), offer of judgment. On appeal, in addition to seeking actual attorney fees and other expenses, the Stewarts assert that they are entitled to interest on the amounts awarded to them at arbitration pursuant to WIS. STAT. §§ 628.46 and 814.04(4) (2007-08). We conclude that: (1) when the Stewarts settled their bad faith action for $5000, that settlement encompassed the actual attorney fees and expenses they now seek, which are compensatory damages; and (2) in accordance with the arbitration stipulation, because the Stewarts were not entitled to recover from Farmers due to the fact that the total amount awarded was less than the amount of the Stewarts' settlement with Menards, they are not entitled to interest under §§ 628.46 and 814.04(4). Accordingly, we affirm.
• Cities & Towns/ Zoning/ Declaratory Judgment/ Ordinances/ Mootness/ Statutes
  
  Village of Newburg v. Town of Trenton
  Docket: 2008AP002997 08-26-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  BROWN, C.J. The Wisconsin legislature generally requires an incorporated municipality to act within its own territorial boundaries. But our legislature has recognized that a municipality may need to act outside its boundaries to plan for its future expansion and physical development. So the legislature allows a municipality to temporarily enact a moratorium that prohibits unincorporated towns from changing the zoning of land next to the municipality's boundaries. The moratorium gives the municipality time to work with each unincorporated town affected to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan on how the land in that unincorporated town should be used. This power is called extraterritorial zoning. See WIS. STAT. § 62.23(7a) (2007-08). The Village of Newburg had an extraterritorial zoning moratorium in place that prohibited zoning changes on land within one and one-half miles of its boundaries for two years from November 20, 2006. The Village brought this declaratory judgment action asserting that the Town of Trenton violated the moratorium by approving a development with land uses that the Town's zoning ordinances allegedly prohibit without rezoning. The circuit court agreed with the Town's conclusion that it properly followed its ordinances. But we hold that the Town engaged in a de facto rezoning of the land by approving uses its ordinances do not allow. We therefore reverse.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Lineups
  
  State v. Gee
  Docket: 2008AP001238 08-25-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Robert L. Gee appeals from a judgment of conviction for armed robbery to challenge the denial of his suppression motion. The issue is whether the lineup at which he was identified was impermissibly suggestive because he was practically bald, and most of the other lineup participants were only balding. We conclude that a six-man lineup consisting of men with similar physical characteristics, including very short-cropped hair in various degrees of balding to match the complainant's description of the suspect as having "short hair," was not impermissibly suggestive. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Evidence
  
  State v. Montgomery
  Docket: 2008AP001903 08-25-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Charles G. Montgomery appeals from an order denying his WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2007-08) motion for postconviction relief. In that motion, Montgomery contended that his trial and postconviction counsel had been ineffective. After Montgomery was unable to procure the presence of trial counsel at an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the motion. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ New Trial
  
  State v. Vega
  Docket: 2008AP002468 08-26-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Jose A. Vega has appealed from a judgment convicting him of first-degree intentional homicide, party to the crime. He also appeals from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm the judgment and the order.
• Criminal Law/ Judicial Authority-Discretion/ New Trial/ Attorney/ Client Relationship/ Attorneys
  
  State v. Kurtz
  Docket: 2008AP002954E 08-28-09
  
• Criminal Law/ Pleas/ Judges/ Plea Withdrawal/ Plea Bargaining/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel
  
  State v. Lobley
  Docket: 2008AP000427 08-25-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Allen Dontrell Lobley appeals from a judgment of conviction for first-degree reckless homicide and from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He seeks to withdraw his guilty plea. Lobley claims that either the trial judge impermissibly participated in plea bargaining during the proceedings, or his trial attorney was ineffective by misrepresenting that the trial judge participated in plea bargaining. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Procedure/ Joinder Of Complaints
  
  State v. Cramer
  Docket: 2008AP002475 08-27-09
  State v. Cramer
  Docket: 2008AP002476 08-27-09
  State v. Cramer
  Docket: 2008AP002477 08-27-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Edward Cramer, Jr., appeals from judgments convicting him on seven counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child, and two counts of repeated sexual assaults of the same child. He also appeals from orders denying him postconviction relief, but raises no issues concerning those orders. The State originally filed three complaints, each charging assaults against a different victim. The cases were subsequently joined and tried together to a jury. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly ordered joinder of the three prosecutions. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Stalking/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation/ Evidence/ Notice/ Constitutional Law-Due Process
  
  State v. Connor
  Docket: 2008AP001296 08-27-09
  

  BRIDGE, J. Janet A. Conner appeals from the judgment of conviction entered against her and the order denying her motion for postconviction relief. Following a jury trial, Conner was convicted of one count of stalking with a previous conviction within seven years of a prior conviction in violation of WIS. STAT. § 940.32(2m)(b) (2007-08). She contends that: (1) the circuit court improperly interpreted § 940.32(2m)(b) when it admitted evidence of her "course of conduct," which included acts that preceded her prior conviction for violating a harassment injunction obtained by the victim in the present matter; (2) the circuit court improperly admitted other acts evidence relating to the acts underlying her conviction for violating the injunction, as well as to acts underlying her conviction for criminal damage to the property of a victim other than the victim in the present matter; and (3) the criminal information did not provide her with adequate notice of the charged stalking offense. We disagree with each contention and affirm.
• Easement/ Declaratory Judgments/ Deeds/ Statutes
  
  Borek Cranberry Marsh v. Jackson County
  Docket: 2008AP001144 08-27-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  HIGGINBOTHAM, J. Borek Cranberry Marsh, Inc. appeals an order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of Jackson County. Borek filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment recognizing its interest in an easement providing the right to remove sand from adjacent property owned by the County. The issue in this appeal is whether the sand removal right granted by the County to a previous owner of Borek's land was personal to the previous owner, or whether it was transferable to subsequent owners like Borek.
• Employment Law/ Discrimination/ Evidence
  
  Mohammed v. Wisconsin Insurance
  Docket: 2008AP002543 08-27-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Fard Mohammed appeals an order affirming a decision of the Wisconsin Insurance Security Fund (WISF). In 2000, Mohammed filed a state and federal complaint of discrimination against his employer, the Racine Unified School District. Mohammed pursued his claim in federal court, but ultimately litigated it before WISF after the District's insurer was declared insolvent and the Circuit Court for Dane County entered an injunction barring actions against Wisconsin insureds of the company. After an evidentiary hearing, WISF dismissed the discrimination claim. We affirm the circuit court's order upholding the WISF decision.
• Estates/ Dead Man’s Statute/ Evidence/ Corporations/ Personal Representative/ Residual Estate
  
  Shovers v. Shovers
  Docket: 2008AP002012 08-25-09
  

  KESSLER, J. Sylvia A. Shovers and her grandson, Daniel E. Shovers, by his guardian ad litem, each appeal from a judgment declaring that Harold J. Shovers (Sylvia's husband) did not own fifty shares in Soref's Carpet City, Inc. (hereafter, "Carpet City") at the time of his death and that the shares therefore would not be included in the inventory of Harold's estate. Sylvia raises three issues on appeal. First, she argues that the trial court erred when it appointed her son, Gary Shovers, as personal representative. Second, Sylvia argues that, as a matter of law, Harold owned fifty shares of stock in Carpet City at the time of his death because the shares had not been transferred to Gary under the requirements of Carpet City's corporate bylaws. Finally, she argues that her motions for summary judgment and judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted because Gary's testimony was inadmissible under the dead man's statute. We affirm the trial court as to each issue.
• Family Law/ TPR/ Evidence/ Statutes
  
  Rock County DHS v. Patricia A.
  Docket: 2009AP001426 08-27-09
  Rock County DHS v. Patricia A.
  Docket: 2009AP001427 08-27-09
  

  VERGERONT, J. Patricia A. appeals the order terminating her parental rights to Julia, d/o/b April 18, 2000, and Jonathon, d/o/b April 14, 2003. She contends there was insufficient evidence that the Rock County Department of Human Services made the requisite reasonable efforts, that she failed to meet the conditions for the return of her children, and that she would not meet the conditions for their return within the next nine months. We conclude there was sufficient evidence and we affirm.
• Family Law/ TPR/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Plea Colloquy/ Knowingly, Voluntarily & Intelligently
  
  Manitowoc County v. Jacob G.
  Docket: 2008AP002710 08-26-09
  Manitowoc County v. Jacob G.
  Docket: 2008AP002711 08-26-09
  Manitowoc County v. Jacob G.
  Docket: 2008AP002712 08-26-09
  

  BROWN, C.J. Melissa G. and Jacob G. appeal from orders terminating parental rights to their children, Jamal G., Keisha G., and Justice G., and denying their postdisposition motion. They claim: (1) that counsel for both were ineffective for failing to object that the trial court lost competency to proceed because the court delegated the task of mailing written dispositional orders and the notice of grounds to terminate to the corporation counsel when the statute requires the court to do so and (2) their plea colloquies were deficient such that their pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. The first issue is a nonstarter. The statute does not prohibit a court from delegating the function of sending the notice. Here, the two parents were provided with a notice that was complete and accurate. As to the second issue, we agree with the postjudgment court that the record demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, Melissa and Jacob's knowing, intelligent and voluntary pleas. We therefore affirm.
• Insurance/ Verdicts/ Liability/ Damages/ Negligence/ Statutes/ New Trial
  
  Oppor v. General Casualty
  Docket: 2008AP002718 08-26-09
  

  NEUBAUER, P.J. Brenda S. Oppor and Scott L. Oppor appeal from a judgment resulting from a jury verdict and an order denying their postverdict motions. The Oppors filed this negligence action against Howard M. Siegle, his employer, and various insurers, after being involved in a rear-end collision with Siegle, who was operating a tractor-trailer for Weiland Trucking Company, Inc., at the time of the accident. The jury's special verdict awarded the Oppors $636,462.77 in damages, but found that Siegle was not negligent in the operation of his vehicle. The trial court denied the Oppors' postverdict motions to modify the jury's negligence verdict as a matter of law or, in the alternative, order a new trial as to liability.
• Landlord-Tenant/ Termination Notice
  
  Guerrero v. City of Kenosha
  Docket: 2008AP001548 08-27-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Norma Guerrero appeals from an order affirming a decision of the City of Kenosha Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. The dispositive issue is whether the City of Kenosha Housing Authority provided Guerrero with a sufficient termination notice. We conclude it did not, and we reverse.
• Medical Malpractice/ Statutes/ Evidence/ Procedure/ Mistrial/ Closing Argument/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  Young v. Tonsfeldt
  Docket: 2008AP002162 08-26-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Arthur F. Young appeals from the judgment after a jury trial, dismissing his claims against Denis J. Tonsfeldt, M.D., and Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Inc., in this medical malpractice action for the death of his wife. Young argues that the circuit court erred when it would not allow him to introduce the deposition testimony of another doctor, Dr. Terry A. Zarling, and when it denied his motion for a mistrial. We conclude that even assuming the circuit court erred when it would not allow Young to read in Dr. Zarling's deposition testimony, the error was harmless, and that the circuit court did not err when it denied the motion for a mistrial. Consequently, we affirm.
• OWI/ Traffic Stops/ Evidence/ Reasonable Suspicion
  
  State v. Ullrich
  Docket: 2009AP000088 08-27-09
  

  BRIDGE, J. The State of Wisconsin appeals an order of the circuit court granting Angela Ullrich's motion to suppress evidence gained as a result of the investigatory stop of Ullrich's vehicle. The State contends that there was reasonable suspicion to believe that Ullrich was violating WIS. STAT. § 341.15 in light of her unreadable, snow-covered registration plate and, therefore, the court's suppression of evidence was erroneous. We agree and therefore reverse.
• Property/ Foreclosure/ Replevin/ Sanctions/ Attorney Withdrawal/ Affirmative Defenses/ Discovery
  
  Wisconsin Community Bank v. Alta Construction
  Docket: 2008AP001947 08-27-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Alta Construction, Jupiter Drive TD, Dublin House, Southern Wisconsin Structural Concrete and Brian Cason appeal from a judgment granting Wisconsin Community Bank's foreclosure and replevin claims against them following a trial to the court. They challenge pretrial orders which dismissed their affirmative defenses and counterclaims as a discovery sanction and permitted counsel to withdraw. We affirm for the reasons discussed below.
• Property/ Taxation/ Statutes/ Beneficial Ownership Test
  
  Saddle Ridge v. Town of Pacific
  Docket: 2007AP002886 08-27-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  HIGGINBOTHAM, J. This case arises from Saddle Ridge Corporation's challenge of a property tax assessment against it for vacant land within three condominium projects reserved for development of forty-one recorded but unbuilt units. The Board of Review for the Town of Pacific upheld the assessment, and the circuit court reversed the Board's decision on certiorari review. Saddle Ridge contends that it was improperly assessed for the vacant land reserved for development because it does not own the land under the terms of the condominium declarations. The Board argues that its assessment was valid because ownership for tax assessment purposes is properly determined under the beneficial ownership test, and asserts that Saddle Ridge is the beneficial owner of the land in question. Thus, the issues as framed by the appellant are what is the proper test to determine ownership for tax assessment purposes of land reserved for unbuilt units in a partially developed condominium project, and, applying that test, who owns the land.
• Safe Place Statute/ Negligence/ Insurance/ Summary Judgment/ Constructive Notice
  
  Gulbrandsen v. H & D, Inc.
  Docket: 2008AP002990 08-26-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  NEUBAUER, P.J. Judith Gulbrandsen and Peter Gulbrandsen, along with their insurer, Aetna Life Insurance Company, appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Sunset Family Restaurant and Society Insurance. The Gulbrandsens brought this action against Sunset alleging common law negligence and violation of the Wisconsin safe place statute, WIS. STAT. ch. 101 (2007-08), after Judith was allegedly injured during a fall caused by a sidewalk crack outside the restaurant. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Sunset based on its determination that the sidewalk crack caused a "minimal difference" in elevation and the restaurant did not have actual or constructive notice of an unsafe condition. The Gulbrandsens appeal.
• Summary Judgment/ Contracts/ Conversion/ Public Policy
  
  Bunberry & Associates v. Assisted Living
  Docket: 2008AP002334 08-27-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Restaino Bunbury & Associates appeals from a summary judgment decision that dismissed its breach of contract and conversion action against Assisted Living Concepts. As we will explain below, we agree with the trial court that the contract and conversion claims were barred by recent precedent from this court. Accordingly, we affirm.
• Summary Judgment/ Mistrial/ Jury Instructions/ Evidence/ Verdicts/ Post Judgment Interest/ Settlement Offer/ Statutes
  
  Matysik v. Wisconsin Pipe Trades
  Docket: 2008AP002272 08-25-09
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Dean R. Schipke and his insurance company, Middlesex Insurance Company (collectively, Schipke) appeal the judgment entered upon a jury's verdict in favor of Debra A. Matysik, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Scott Matysik. Schipke claims that the trial court: (1) erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when, in opening statements, Matysik's attorney made reference to the fact that Schipke was issued a traffic ticket following the accident; (2) gave an erroneous curative jury instruction concerning Schipke's traffic ticket mistakenly revealed to the jury in opening statements; (3) erroneously exercised its discretion in permitting the introduction of evidence concerning Scott Matysik's ability to operate a motorcycle; (4) erred in refusing to change several of the answers in the special verdict because there was insufficient evidence to support the answers; (5) erroneously exercised its discretion in denying Schipke's motion seeking a new trial; and (6) erroneously exercised its discretion in denying Schipke's motion seeking an order allowing him to pay the judgment to the clerk of courts, thereby tolling interest while this appeal was pending. Because the mention of the traffic ticket was not sufficiently prejudicial; the curative instruction was not prejudicial; sufficient evidence was introduced at trial to sustain the verdict; the one question asked of a witness concerning Matysik's motorcyclist abilities was harmless error; the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying a new trial; and the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the request to pay the judgment to the clerk of courts, we affirm.