Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Robin Lavance Perkins

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
June 30, 2022
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and
RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2021AP2220 Cir. Ct. No. 2021SC5936

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

ROBIN LAVANCE PERKINS,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County:
VALERIE BAILEY-RIHN, Judge. Affirmed.

¶1 FITZPATRICK, J.1 Robin Perkins formerly leased an apartment
from the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin (“the Board”). The Board
brought an action to evict Perkins from that apartment in small claims court in Dane
County. I think that Perkins wants to appeal an order of the circuit court concerning

1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(a) (2019-20).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.
No. 2021AP2220

that eviction. But, Perkins’ notice of appeal and briefing in this court are such that
it is impossible to determine what Perkins wants this court to do and the basis for
Perkins’ request on appeal. Luckily, the Board’s response brief explains the events
in the circuit court, and I summarize those now.

¶2 The Board filed an eviction action to remove Perkins from an
apartment owned by the Board. Perkins did not appear at the eviction hearing, and
a default judgment was entered against Perkins. Perkins filed two motions in the
circuit court that the court construed either as a motion to reopen the judgment or
for relief from judgment under WIS. STAT. § 806.07. Both motions were denied by
the circuit court.

¶3 It is hard to tell anything about what Perkins requests as relief in this
appeal. Perkins’ brief-in-chief and reply brief are a jumble of words with nothing
that approaches a discernable argument. Wisconsin appellate courts grant some
leniency to pro se litigants, like Perkins, in regard to briefing. Waushara Cnty. v.
Graf, 166 Wis. 2d 442, 452, 480 N.W.2d 16 (1992). However, a pro se litigant still
has to make a recognizable argument as to why a decision of the circuit court should
be reversed. See id. Perkins has not done so in this appeal.

¶4 For those reasons Perkins’ appeal is rejected, and the order of the
circuit court is affirmed.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

2