COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

December 12, 2023

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and 

RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2022AP1561 Cir. Ct. No. 2018CV8456

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT I

F. DUSTIN BOWIE,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

ROBERT A. SETTECASE,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: 

PEDRO A. COLON, Judge. Affirmed. 

Before White, C.J., Donald, P.J., and Geenen, J. 

Per curiam opinions 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). 

¶1 PER CURIAM. Robert A. Settecase appeals from a trial court order 

upholding a jury verdict in favor of his former business partner, F. Dustin Bowie. 
No. 2022AP1561

2

Settecase contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed 

verdict because there was insufficient evidence to uphold the verdict. Upon review, 

we disagree and affirm the trial court.

BACKGROUND

¶2 This case stems from a business dispute between two former business 

partners, Settecase and Bowie. The parties jointly owned Premier Milwaukee, LLC, 

which owned and operated a Milwaukee-area bar. The parties have a contentious 

litigation history which began in 2014 when Settecase brought a suit against Bowie 

alleging, as relevant to this appeal, breach of contract, fraud, and conversion. 

Settecase sought the appointment of a receiver, the dissolution of the business, and 

an accounting of money owed by Bowie. Settecase alleged that Bowie defrauded 

the business and also demanded money damages. The trial court ultimately 

appointed a receiver for the business and later entered an order conveying the 

business’s assets to Settecase. Settecase, however, failed to follow court orders 

regarding the transfer of the assets. He also failed to follow pretrial orders requiring 

him to name witnesses and itemize damages, respond to interrogatories, and file a 

pretrial report. The trial court ultimately dismissed the case without prejudice. 

¶3 Bowie then filed the lawsuit underlying this appeal, alleging abuse of 

process against Settecase. Bowie alleged that “Settecase’s lawsuit gave the false 

impression that Bowie had converted money of Premier Milwaukee and Settecase 

and defrauded them.” Specifically, Bowie alleged that Settecase sought to avoid 

obligations under the business’s operating agreement, sought to avoid compensating 

Bowie, and sought to gain managerial control of the business. 

¶4 Settecase moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the 

motion stating that “a reasonable jury could conclude that Settecase brought claims 
No. 2022AP1561

3

of fraud and conversion to gain leverage over Bowie, who was the managing 

member of their company.” The matter proceeded to trial and Settecase moved for 

a directed verdict. The trial court denied the motion. The jury returned a verdict in 

favor of Bowie. Settecase renewed his motion for a directed verdict, which the trial 

court again denied. This appeal follows.

DISCUSSION

¶5 On appeal Settecase contends that this court “should overturn the 

jury’s verdict and damages award as the trial court erred in allowing the abuse of 

process claim [to] go to the jury.” He also contends that there was insufficient 

evidence to support the verdict. 

¶6 Settecase first claims that the trial court never should have allowed 

the matter to proceed to trial in the first place. However, a party who proceeds to 

trial waives the right to appeal an order denying his or her earlier motion for 

summary judgment. Wittke v. State ex rel. Smith, 80 Wis. 2d 332, 345, 259 N.W.2d 

515 (1977). Settecase thus waived the right to appeal the order denying summary 

judgment and we will not discuss this issue further.

¶7 As to Settecase’s claim that the jury’s verdict was unfounded, we 

conclude that Settecase has not demonstrated any errors of law. The record before 

this court is limited to partial transcripts of the jury trial, therefore this court cannot 

fully assess the evidence presented at trial. The appellant must ensure a complete 

record related to the issues on appeal. Missing material is assumed to support the 

trial court’s decision. Fiumefreddo v. McLean, 174 Wis. 2d 10, 26-27, 496 N.W.2d 

226 (Ct. App. 1993). Therefore, we must assume that the evidence presented at trial 

was sufficient for the jury’s verdict and for the trial court’s decision denying 

Settecase’s motion for a directed verdict.
No. 2022AP1561

4

¶8 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court.

By the Court.—Order affirmed. 

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.

RULE 809.23(1)(b)5. (2021-22).