Heartland Timber Trails v. Jason Borgen

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.
March 9, 2023
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. 2022AP407 Cir. Ct. No. 2022SC116

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV

HEARTLAND TIMBER TRAILS,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

JASON BORGEN AND ALINA SCHAFER,

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Wood County:
GREGORY J. POTTER, Judge. Affirmed.

¶1 BLANCHARD, P.J.1 Jason Borgen and Alina Schafer, pro se, appeal
the circuit court’s judgment for eviction entered in favor of Heartland Timber Trails.

1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(a) (2021-22).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted.
No. 2022AP407

¶2 There is little development of legal issues in the appellate brief filed
by Borgen and Schafer. Beyond that, however, what settles this appeal is the fact
that Borgen and Schafer have failed to ensure that the record includes the transcript
of the hearing at which the circuit court took evidence and gave reasoning to support
whatever specific findings or determinations Borgen and Schafer may intend to
argue constituted error. Puzzlingly, the brief makes reference to the “Official Trial
Court Transcript,” but the record does not reflect a transcript or even that any
transcript was ordered.

¶3 “We are bound by the record as it comes to us,” and “when an
appellate record is incomplete in connection with an issue raised by the appellant,
we must assume that the missing material supports the [circuit] court’s ruling.”
Fiumefreddo v. McLean, 174 Wis. 2d 10, 26-27, 496 N.W.2d 226 (Ct. App. 1993);
see also Butcher v. Ameritech Corp., 2007 WI App 5, ¶35, 298 Wis. 2d 468, 727
N.W.2d 546 (the appellant bears the responsibility of providing the appellate courts
with a record that is sufficient to review the issues being raised); WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.11(4). In addition, the appendix to the appellants’ brief violates WIS.
STAT. RULE 809.19(2)(a) because it lacks “the findings or opinion of the circuit
court” and “limited portions of the record essential to an understanding of the issues
raised, including oral or written rulings or decisions showing the circuit court’s
reasoning regarding those issues.”

¶4 On a related point, “it is the burden of the appellant to demonstrate
that the [circuit] court erred.” Seltrecht v. Bremer, 214 Wis. 2d 110, 125, 571
N.W.2d 686 (Ct. App. 1997). Borgen and Schafer cannot meet this burden because
the March 3, 2022 order that they purport to challenge on unclear grounds does not
even include, much less address the substance of, the circuit court’s reasoning on

2
No. 2022AP407

any issue. In other words, they are unable to demonstrate that the circuit court
committed an error when no reasoning of the court is reflected in the record.

¶5 Heartland has failed to file a brief. However, summary reversal would
not be appropriate, given the nature of the appellants’ brief and the state of the
record.

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

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

3