In the Matter of the Guardianship of Eleanore S.

1 CURLEY, P.J. James S. appeals the order denying his motion seeking relief from the final stipulation and for a declaratory judgment. He also appeals the trial court order assessing him $8409 for attorneys' fees after finding that he violated the pleading requirements of Wis. Stat. § 802.05 (2005‑06).[1] Because James S.'s motions were filed after he was ordered by the trial court to file nothing further, as he was not a party to the underlying guardianship case and the case was dismissed by stipulation, and because this court advised James S. that the matter was moot in a previous appeal, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying his motions and ordering James S. to pay attorneys' fees of $8409 for his violation of § 802.05.[2] Consequently, we affirm.

I. Background.

2 The genesis of this litigation was St. Francis Hospital's (St. Francis) commencing a guardianship proceeding on July 2, 2003, seeking to have James S.'s mother, Eleanore, protectively placed.[3] Eleanore was a patient at the hospital at the time that the guardianship was filed, and, as a result of a medical examination, it was feared she was unable to care for herself. James S. opposed the guardianship proceeding and attempted to intervene. The trial court appointed a guardian ad litem for Eleanore, as well as adversary counsel. Despite James S.'s inability to intervene in the guardianship proceeding, he filed numerous motions with the court. Eventually the trial court dismissed the petition for guardianship on April 27, 2004, based upon a stipulation of the parties. Prior to its April 27, 2004 dismissal of the guardianship petition, the trial court entered an order reiterating an October 30, 2003 order that James S. was not a proper party in the matter of the petition of St. Francis for permanent guardianship of Eleanore because, among other things: "There is no legal authority in Wis. Stat. § 880.33 which gives [James] the right to file motions or participate in the [guardianship] trial…." The trial court also ordered James S. not to file any other motions in the matter, warning him that the failure to observe this order could subject him to sanctions. Several appeals have been started by him in this and related cases; all, save one, have been unsuccessful. In one of them, he was told by this court that the matter was moot.

3 Undaunted, James S. filed additional motions seeking relief from the stipulation and later filed a request for a declaratory judgment with a successor trial judge. On August 12, 2005, over a year after the case was dismissed by stipulation, the trial court denied his motions and assessed costs against James S. of $8409 after finding that he violated Wis. Stat. § 802.05.[4] The trial court's order stated that the costs would be stayed unless James S. appealed the denial of his motion.[5] On January 11, 2006, the trial court was advised that James S. had filed this appeal, and on January 12, 2006, the trial court signed an order requiring him to pay $8409 to St. Francis's attorneys.

4 At the time that the trial court assessed costs against James S., these findings were made:

I make a finding that there is an order in this case by Judge Brennan that's well over a year old that precludes that which was filed in this court. I reject as legitimate the explanation as to why Mr. S[.] did not feel that this motion was a violation of that order, that reason being that he was ordered by Judge Brennan to further participate in the guardianship, which somehow overruled that order precluding filings. And in fact Mr. S[.] honored the order, as he explained to the Court of Appeals, which is why he made his motions there rather than in the trial court.

And I conclude that it is a reasonable finding of fact that the reason that Mr. S[.] felt free to bring this motion before this Court was that he saw a chance to get another kick at the cat, and that there was a degree of forum shopping going on, and that Mr. S[.] knew or should have known that [] forum shopping is improper.

….

… Mr. S[.] is engaged in a crusade about this 50.06 issue. He has concerns about what he considers to be lies, false affidavits, fraud visited upon the court, all of that. But he has missed the point. The point is that this case is about a guardianship and a protective placement, which was dismissed, which is what he wanted to have happen. And that he has sought to litigate other issues in the context of this guardianship is not reasonable based in law or equity, and he has been told that at least three times by Judge Brennan, and by the Court of Appeals twice, and that there is no – and that the reasons given today are not reasonably supported in law, nor do they even attempt to cite some sort of extension of the law.

Those are basically the same findings that are required under 802.05 for someone who must file, who files documents. But I do find that these motions are not reasonable based in law.

5 In his brief to the trial court, James S. took the position that he had standing in the case because he was his mother's agent, due to his once being named power of attorney for health care for her, and he submits that the trial court never had jurisdiction to hear the guardianship because it was commenced improperly. Among his other claims, he argues that his mother's adversary counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the trial court's competency to act in the matter due to its being improperly commenced, and he sought a declaratory judgment, claiming that Wis. Stat. § 50.06 (2001-02) bestows certain rights on him, including his right to sue for violation of the statute, because, as Eleanore's adult son, under the statute he is one of a class of people who could have consented to Eleanore S.'s admission to the nursing home.[6]

6 Following the filing of the appeal, other matters transpired. The trial court attempted to hold a hearing on the amount of fees owed to St. Francis's attorneys in a contempt proceeding. James S. failed to appear and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. Eventually, the trial court found James S. in contempt and entered a judgment against him for $8474.50, payable to St. Francis for its attorneys' fees and costs. That matter is the subject of a different appeal.

II. Analysis.

7 James S. makes several arguments. First, he complains that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings to sanction him to pay $8409 in attorneys' fees to St. Francis's attorneys, and he contends that the sanctions were inappropriate. He also claims that the trial court erred in finding both: that it had jurisdiction to proceed "over a perjured, improperly filed petition for guardianship"; and, in denying his motion for declaratory judgment on the basis that Wis. Stat. § 50.06 (2001-02) does not confer any rights for an individual listed in the statute to redress violations of the statue when a healthcare provider intentionally violates the statute. We refuse to address his arguments because the matter is moot.

8 A stipulation was entered on April 27, 2004, dismissing the guardianship. That document concluded the matter. Even before the stipulation was entered, the trial court ordered James S. not to file any additional papers in this case because he was not a proper party. James S. disregarded that order on numerous occasions. Following the dismissal, James S. appealed the trial court's decision, and on September 28, 2004, this court dismissed the appeal as being moot. James S.'s request for reconsideration was also dismissed by this court. James S. then filed a motion in the circuit court seeking to be relieved of the final stipulation and for a declaratory judgment. The successor judge to Judge Brennan denied James S.'s motions on August 12, 2005. This is an appeal of those motions. Thus, James S. has been told by at least two trial court judges that he has no standing to bring any motions in this case and this court has concluded that that matter is moot. A matter is moot if a determination is sought that cannot have a practical effect on an existing controversy. State ex rel. Olson v. Litscher, 2000 WI App 61, 3, 233 Wis. 2d 685, 608 N.W.2d 425. The sought-after guardianship has long since been abandoned and the case dismissed. No motions brought by James S. can have any effect on that controversy as it has been resolved. Consequently, there is no existing controversy. Thus, our resolution of the issues raised by James S. would have no practical effect. Cf. id., 3 (an issue is moot when our resolution thereof would be purely academic and have no practical effect on the ultimate controversy; we need not address such issues). Therefore, we decline to address James S.'s issues raised in his motion.

9 We next address the trial court's determination that James S.'s filing of additional motions in this case violated Wis. Stat. § 802.05 and, as a consequence, ordered him to pay St. Francis's attorneys' fees of $8409.

10 Wisconsin Stat. § 802.05(2), in pertinent part, requires:

Signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers; representations to court; sanctions.

….

(2) Representations to court. By presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following:

(a) The paper is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

(b) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions stated in the paper are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.

To comply with § 802.05, a person who signs a pleading makes three warranties:

First, the person who signs a pleading, motion or other paper certifies that the paper was not interposed for any improper purpose. Second, the signer warrants that to his or her best "knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry" the paper is "well grounded in fact." Third, the signer also certifies that he or she has conducted a reasonable inquiry and that the paper is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for a change in it.

Wisconsin Chiropractic Ass'n v. Chiropractic Examining Bd., 2004 WI App 30, 13, 269 Wis. 2d 837, 676 N.W.2d 580 (citations omitted); see also § 802.05(1)(a). If the trial court finds "that any one of the three requirements set forth under the statute [governing signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers] has been disregarded, it may impose an appropriate sanction on the person signing the pleading or on a represented party or both." Wisconsin Chiropractic Ass'n, 269 Wis. 2d 837, 13.

11

When we review the grant or denial of attorney fees under Wis. Stat. § 802.05(1), our standard of review varies depending on the issue presented. The first warranty - that the pleading is not used for an improper purpose - requires factual findings, and we accept factual findings made by the trial court unless they are clearly erroneous.

Id., 16 (citing Wis. Stat. § 805.17(2) and Stern v. Thompson & Coates, Ltd., 185 Wis. 2d 220, 236, 517 N.W.2d 658 (1994)). After reviewing the trial court's factual findings made on August 12, 2005, we are satisfied that the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion.[7] Here, the trial court noted that James S. was "forum shopping" by raising his issues before a new judge, and that he filed his most current motion because he was "engaged in a crusade." We agree. James S. has refused to let go of this matter. He has been rebuffed by two levels of courts, yet he continues to file motions. He has violated the statute and filed motions for improper purposes.

12 Moreover, James S.'s refusal to follow the trial court's order to refrain from filing any further motions in the case because he was not a party to the case is, in itself, a clear violation of the statute. James S.'s conduct in this case has been egregious. He has totally ignored the trial court's rulings regarding his standing and our rulings that the case was moot. The disputed issue in the guardianship was resolved long ago and in a fashion favorably to James S. It is unfair to require St. Francis to continue to pay the cost of their attorneys' fees for James S.'s shenanigans. The lawyers have documented the time they expended in this matter and the trial court found it reasonable. We agree, and affirm the order requiring James S. to pay $8409.

* * *