Anita Kellerman v. Dee A. Flory

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688
Telephone (608) 266-1880
TTY: (800) 947-3529
Facsimile (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
DISTRICT IV
May 29, 2026
To:
Hon. Gregory J. Jerabek
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Kimberly Stimac
Clerk of Circuit Court
Wood County Courthouse
Electronic Notice
Dee A. Flory
Electronic Notice
Anita Kellerman
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2025AP2241 Anita Kellerman v. Dee A. Flory (L.C. # 2024CV174)
Before Blanchard, Nashold, and Taylor, JJ.
Summary disposition orders may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or
authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
Dee Flory appeals an order of the circuit court denying her motion for compensatory
damages. Flory asserts that she is entitled to damages under WIS. STAT. § 895.044 (2023-24)1 by
virtue of this court’s June 2025 summary reversal of an order granting a harassment injunction in
favor of Anita Kellerman and against Flory. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we
conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.21. We affirm.
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

No. 2025AP2241
2
Litigation between the parties began in 2024, when Kellerman petitioned for and was
granted a four-year harassment injunction in the circuit court against Flory. Flory appealed,
presenting an adequately developed argument to this court that Kellerman failed to meet her
burden at the injunction hearing to show that Flory committed acts to harass or intimidate
Kellerman that served no legitimate purpose. See Welytok v. Ziolkowski, 2008 WI App 67, ¶23,
312 Wis. 2d 435, 752 N.W.2d 359 (describing the petitioner’s burden of proof to obtain an
injunction). This court summarily reversed on the ground that “Kellerman ma[de] no attempt to
refute Flory’s arguments,” offering only “conclusory and unsupported” assertions that “Flory’s
allegations against her lacked merit” and that “Flory made them with the intent to harass
Kellerman.” Kellerman v. Flory, No. 2024AP1430, unpublished op. and order (WI App
June 26, 2025). As we explained, we deemed Kellerman’s failure to refute Flory’s arguments an
implicit concession. Id. (citing Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Sec. Corp., 90
Wis. 2d 97, 109, 279 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1979)).
Flory moved for damages in the circuit court under WIS. STAT. § 895.044, which
provides in part:
(1) A party or a party’s attorney may be liable for costs and fees
under this section for commencing, using, or continuing an action,
special proceeding, counterclaim, defense, cross complaint, or
appeal to which any of the following applies:
(a) The action, special proceeding, counterclaim, defense, cross
complaint, or appeal was commenced, used, or continued in bad
faith, solely for purposes of harassing or maliciously injuring
another.
(b) The party or the party’s attorney knew, or should have known,
that the action, special proceeding, counterclaim, defense, cross
complaint, or appeal was without any reasonable basis in law or
equity and could not be supported by a good faith argument for an
extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.

No. 2025AP2241
3
The circuit court noted that this court’s opinion expressed no conclusion that Kellerman
had pursued the harassment injunction in bad faith or solely for the purpose of harassing or
intimidating Flory. In addition, the circuit court was “unable to find any clear and convincing
evidence as required by [the statute] … that the above-entitled matter was commenced, or
continued in bad faith, by the petitioner solely for the purpose of harassing o[r] intimidating the
respondent.” See WIS. STAT. § 895.044(2). The court therefore denied Flory’s motion. Flory
appeals.
In reviewing a decision on whether to grant damages under WIS. STAT. § 895.044, we
apply a mixed standard of review. See Stern v. Thompson & Coates, Ltd., 185 Wis. 2d 220,
236, 517 N.W.2d 658 (1994). We rely on the circuit court’s findings of fact “unless they are
against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.” See id. Whether certain facts
“fulfill the legal standard” under the statute is a question of law we review independently. See
id.
Flory makes many assertions and accusations in her brief. However, she does not
develop a supported argument that she presented the circuit court with record evidence
establishing that Kellerman commenced or continued litigation in bad faith solely for the purpose
of harassing or intimidating her. She instead appears to rely on our prior summary order.
Flory misunderstands the nature of that order. She suggests that she prevailed on the
merits of the underlying case or that this court endorsed her version of the events and
motivations of the parties. In fact, this court reversed on the basis that Kellerman effectively
conceded on appeal that the evidence presented at the hearing in the circuit court was insufficient
to support the order for a harassment injunction. A concession that the evidence presented was

No. 2025AP2241
4
insufficient to support an injunction is not a concession that the petition was filed for purposes of
harassment or malicious injury, and this court made no such determination.
Because Flory has not met her burden to demonstrate that the circuit court erred in
denying damages under WIS. STAT. § 895.044, we affirm.
IT IS ORDERED that the order of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. See WIS.
STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Court of Appeals