COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

August 14, 2024

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. 2023AP922 Cir. Ct. No. 2022SC790

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT II

MATTHEW STEVEN BARGER,

 PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

 V.

KATIE PETERS,

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Washington

County: JAMES K. MUEHLBAUER, Judge. Affirmed. 

¶1 LAZAR, J.1 Katie Peters appeals from a judgment of the circuit 

court against her and in favor of Matthew Steven Barger. Barger filed this small 

 

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. 2023AP922

2

claims suit against Peters seeking $8,587.50 for remodeling work that he 

completed on an apartment in a building that she purchased sometime after the 

work began and now owns. 

¶2 After a trial, the circuit court awarded $5,000 to Barger on a theory 

of unjust enrichment; there was no written contract containing the terms of the 

agreement and significant confusion about whether the previous owner of the 

building or Peters was responsible for the work, but the court reasoned that Peters 

“ended up with the fixed-up building and ... own[s] it, and [Barger is] out of 

money.” See, e.g., Buckett v. Jante, 2009 WI App 55, ¶10, 316 Wis. 2d 804, 767 

N.W.2d 376 (explaining that the elements of unjust enrichment are that “the 

plaintiff conferred a benefit upon the defendant,” the defendant appreciated that 

benefit, and the defendant accepted the benefit under circumstances that make it 

inequitable to do so “without payment of its value”).

¶3 In her appellate brief, Peters identified two arguments: (1) that her 

attorney in the circuit court committed legal malpractice, and (2) that she did not 

receive due process because her case was inappropriately consolidated, the judge 

was biased against her, and the proceeding in the circuit court was unfair. Barger 

responded by asserting that neither of these undeveloped arguments provides 

grounds for reversal and pointing out that Peters had not made any objections to 

evidence introduced at trial or asserted any mistake of law by the trial court. 

Peters did not file a reply brief.

¶4 Arguments not refuted may be deemed conceded. See Charolais 

Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Secs. Corp., 90 Wis. 2d 97, 109, 279 N.W.2d 493 

(Ct. App. 1979). Moreover, Peters’s initial brief does not conform to the rules of 

appellate procedure; for example, it does not discuss applicable law as required by 
No. 2023AP922

3

WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(1)(e) and does not develop legal arguments sufficient to 

reverse the circuit court. This court will not independently develop a litigant’s 

arguments. Vesely v. Security First Nat’l Bank, 128 Wis. 2d 246, 255 n.5, 381 

N.W.2d 593 (Ct. App. 1985). For these reasons, the judgment is affirmed.

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

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

RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.