Case Title: Metropolitan Ventures, LLC v. GEA Associates

Citation: 2007 WI 23

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2007-02-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
2007 WI 23 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2003AP1806 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
Metropolitan Ventures, LLC, a Wisconsin limited 
liability company, 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
     v. 
GEA Associates, a Wisconsin limited partnership, 
Elizabeth Levins, and Margaret Reuss, as Trustee 
of the Henry S. Reuss Trust, 
          Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners. 
 
 
 
 
 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
2006 WI 71 
Reported at: 291 Wis. 2d 393, 717 N.W.2d 58 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 21, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., dissents (opinion filed).   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: WILCOX, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 23
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2003AP1806  
(L.C. No. 
2002CV9109) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Metropolitan Ventures, LLC, a Wisconsin limited 
liability company, 
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
GEA Associates, a Wisconsin limited 
partnership, Elizabeth Levins, and Margaret 
Reuss, as Trustee of the Henry S. Reuss Trust, 
 
          Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 21, 2007 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
MOTIONS for reconsideration.  Motions denied.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.    GEA Associates, et al. (GEA), the 
defendants-respondents-petitioners, move the court to reconsider 
its decision in the above captioned case.  Metropolitan 
Ventures, LLC (Metropolitan), the plaintiff-appellant, moves the 
court to clarify its decision in this case, a request we 
construe to be a motion for reconsideration pursuant to 
Wis. Stat. § 809.64.   
¶2 
We deny the motions for reconsideration of GEA and 
Metropolitan.   
No. 
2003AP1806   
 
2 
 
¶3 
However, we do clarify our opinion to decide issues 
raised 
by 
the 
parties 
but 
not 
decided 
by 
the 
court.  
Accordingly, we amend footnote 7 to read as follows: 
Metropolitan originally filed claims against GEA 
for breach of contract, breach of implied duty of good 
faith, intentional interference with contract, breach 
of fiduciary duty, negligence, and conversion.  The 
trial court dismissed the claims against GEA for 
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and 
conversion.  We note that the court of appeals did not 
review the dismissal of Metropolitan's breach of 
fiduciary duty and conversion claims.  See generally 
Metropolitan Ventures v. GEA Assocs., 2004 WI App 189, 
276 Wis. 2d 625, 688 N.W.2d 722.  We affirm the trial 
court's dismissal of these two claims.  
Metropolitan bases its claims for fiduciary duty 
and conversion on the novel theory that "Levins was an 
escrow depository for the assignments executed and 
delivered 
to 
her 
by 
GEA's 
limited 
partners."   
Metropolitan argues that, in her role as an "escrow 
depository," Levins breached her fiduciary duty to 
Metropolitan, resulting in the conversion of property 
that was rightfully Metropolitan's under the terms of 
the Assignment Agreements.  Whether the Assignment 
Agreements created an escrow and established Levins as 
the 
escrow 
depository 
are 
issues 
of 
contract 
interpretation subject to de novo review.   Jones v. 
Jenkins, 88 Wis. 2d 712, 722, 277 N.W.2d 815 (1979).    
The text of the Assignment Agreements do not 
explicitly provide for the creation of an escrow.   
Metropolitan asserts that the creation of an escrow 
may be implied from the terms of a contract, but fails 
to cite any cases that so hold.  Suffice to say, under 
the terms of these agreements, an escrow was not 
created.  We conclude infra, ¶¶34-45, that GEA and 
Levins were bound by a duty to exercise good faith in 
their dealings with Metropolitan.  However, we decline 
to conclude that Levins was an escrow depository 
possessing the even more stringent duty of a fiduciary 
to Metropolitan.   
 
No. 
2003AP1806   
 
3 
 
¶4 
JON P. WILCOX, J., did not participate. 
 
 
No.  2003AP1806.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶5 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (dissenting).  I would 
remand this matter to the court of appeals for further briefing 
and decision. 
 
 
No.  2003AP1806.ssa 
 
 
 
1