Source: http://stopadversepossession.com/
Timestamp: 2013-06-20 10:03:13
Document Index: 176050335

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', '§ 785', '§ 785']

Stand Up Against Injustice and Adverse PossessionYour Subtitle text
On the Topic of Contempt
**(Disclaimer: This website is being provided to be informative and to encourage citizens to become aware of the laws under which they live. The information provided here is not intended as advice. If you run into a problem which involves adverse possession, or any other legal issue, the general wisdom seems to be advised to obtain legal advice - from a qualified attorney. I do not even go so far as to give that advice. If you have a legal problem, such as adverse possession, only you can decide how you will deal with it. That said, please feel free to contact me with any questions, thoughts, or concerns you have. I welcome any and all feedback. If you come across something you believe to be factually inaccurate, please let me know, so that I may check it out and make any needed corrections.)** Words of Wisdom from a legal expert on Adverse Possession ( + a pretty weak argument for the existence of this law.):
"Without commenting on the job your
attorney and/or the judge did in the case, from what I read, I do believe that your
case could have and perhaps should have come out the other way. Thus, I
completely understand your frustration with the law. Unfortunately,
seemingly unfair results can occur in any area of the law. I also agree that the law is often misapplied
and/or misunderstood. However, I do not share your opinion that the
doctrine should be abolished. There are many instances where it would be
completely inequitable to not award title by adverse possession. Take for
example the situation where a family has farmed the same area of land for over
100 years only to learn that the original survey lines do not match what they
believed were the boundaries of their farm. Should that family lose part
of the farmland that the neighbor never even realized was within his or her
boundaries? If that family were denied title to the property by adverse
possession, I’m sure they would feel just as wronged as you feel by your
experience. Although 100 years may be an extreme, most cases of adverse
possession simply involve mistaken boundary lines and there is no intent to
steal a neighbor’s property. In addition, many cases of adverse
possession are settled out of court without any sort of fight or negative
"I guess if my neighbor was good enough to let me use his lawn mower or car for several years, I wouldn't try to even things up with him by telling him that it now belongs to me. Or to better put it in the perspective of adverse possession, if my neighbor had a shed with lots of 'stuff' in it, including several lawn mowers, and I borrowed one without his knowledge, it hardly seems just or honest that I would then claim it as my own because I had used it as my own for several years. I believe in the eyes of the law that is referred to as stealing. Why is it not so when land is the item being taken or used?"
Coming Soon! - "Rational Coercion"
(A book which takes the reader on a journey deep into the world some call 'justice.')
**A must read book- The Road to Serendipity By, Paul C. Epps. ( has nothing to do with adverse possession or the judicial system, but is truly thought-provoking and insightful.) Reading it was a calming and wonderfully worthwhile experience.
(Click here to go to Amazon.com
where it can be purchased)**
"It's the things you do when no one is watching that really matter."
INTEGRITY: "A judge must have the courage to do what is right, while at the same time exercising intellect, wisdom, and common sense to know what is right." Author Unverified
pampfaffolson@yahoo.com
Cell Phone: (608)780-2662
Home Phone: (608)786-0908
(Please leave a message and I will get back to you.) “Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted, with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
~ Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857 ~
Interference with Contract Case
(Pretty clear that the Olsons were acting within their rights and there was no interference with contract in their case either.)
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign ( Check out this site - It is time to stand together.)
Sign a petition online here.
Folks in Washington want to put an end to adverse possession too!
Good People Fighting for What is Right
(Citizens of the American Constitution)
Sadly, people in positions of trust and power do not always do the right thing. Check out this story.
Interesting Discussion on How Judges Feel Cases Should Be Presented. (Wisconsin Lawyer Vol. 73, No. 4, April
2000 - "Thought-provoking panel discussions at the State Bar's Midwinter
Bench and Bar Conference identified steps judges and lawyers can take to
make courtroom proceedings more effective, efficient, and even
pleasant." Notice Judge Damon's insightful comments on how he relies on the attorneys in the cases to assist him in doing his job.)
"I do not know the word 'quit.' Either I never did, or I have abolished it. "
~Susan Butcher~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "There is no greater shame than knowing the right thing to do and choosing to not do it."
Pam Olson This site is constantly under construction. New information is being added daily. Please check back often. The site's purpose is to provide information on the law of adverse possession as well as the unbalanced/ unethical way the judicial system can be used. Public records are being made readily available here to allow readers to see for themselves what occurs behind the judicial and governmental doors in Wisconsin. Unfortunately,it is these public records that tell the whole story. Typically, it is difficult for the average citizen to gain access to them. The systems for public access are time consuming and not very user friendly. Here, you may read the case documentation at your leisure. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
( A well- written description of "our day in court.") A Definition of "Kangaroo Court"
Following you will read the story of how we became entangled in a more than four year dispute, which started over a small (.18 acre - yes - that is about 1/5 of an acre) parcel of land. You will see how this seemingly benign dispute became a battle for much more than that symbolic piece of soil. It became an all out war for our land, liberty and constitutional rights. Further, it has become an assault on us and our belief systems as well as a thief of our faith in a judicial system we always believed would work as it should, if we ever needed to rely upon it. Please read the story. Check the documentation. If you have questions - contact me. Then, please - do something. Do not sit back silently thinking that this does not affect you, because it does. Complacency by citizens like you and me is what has allowed the people who brazenly skew the law and its implementation to effect the results they desire from it - rather than true justice. The only solution is to stand up and take back the power, before you are faced with a situation similar to ours. As you read our story, you may shake your head and say to yourself- " That couldn't happen to me." "I would have made a deal and settled with them." " I would have signed over the piece of land and cut my losses." In fact the plaintiffs' attorney did give my husband an interesting offer which sounds like he could have been free of the damages we incurred: Read it here.
(I'm not quite sure how what he was proposing would be legally possible, or what type of agreement he was proposing that would have absolved my husband of the responsibility for any damages without both of us buying into it. )
If you find yourself thinking those things, please consider this question: At what point would you decide it is time to fight - How much land and liberty would you be willing to cede before you felt it worthy of a fight? Certainly our forefathers felt the fight worthy - and our veterans of past and present lay their lives on the line daily for our right to enjoy our liberties. It is my firm belief that the least we as citizens can do is to step up and claim these rights when they are challenged. So, if you find yourself thinking that we made our own problems because we chose to fight - you are right. However, when you look at this or any other similar situation with clarity, those who have walked away from the fight, have played a far larger role in our difficulties than most people would care to admit.
"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation”
~ Douglas MacArthur~
How we came to lose .18 acre of our legally titled land along with $32,193.47 to the plaintiffs and their law firm ( This does not include our legal court costs or attorney fees, which amounted to several thousand dollars.):
Our tax bill on the property which was taken from us. We had clearly been paying the taxes on this property, as had the previous owners.
You will find Adverse Possession law elsewhere in these pages. However, keep in mind as you read that Wisconsin law says this (in part): "(1) An action for the recovery or the possession of real estate and a defense or counterclaim based on title to real estate are barred by uninterrupted adverse possession of 20 years, except as provided by s. 893.14 and 893.29. A person who, in connection with his or her predecessors in interest, is in uninterrupted adverse possession of real estate for 20 years, except as provided by s. 893.29, may commence an action to establish title under ch. 841." The act of Adverse Possession does not transfer title. Once the process of adverse possession is complete, it only prevents the legal title holder from making any further claim to the property - based on the title he or she holds. Even though the title holder paid good money for the property and may continue to pay a mortgage on the property, as well as having paid the taxes, essentially ~ the title (and the survey upon which the landowner relied) is worthless. If, heaven forbid, you have dared to set foot on your legally titled property, and the adverse possession is later legally blessed - you are a trespasser on your own land, and can and will be treated as such by the courts! Adverse possession essentially, only allows the long term trespasser (possessor) to continue to possess the land - He or she is no longer considered a trespasser - however they are not yet a title holder. In order to obtain title, the adverse possessor must either sue for it - or obtain it in some other legal fashion. Our Story
When faced with the knowledge that our neighbors had encroached on our land, by placing a portion of their septic system across the legally described and titled boundary between our properties in March of 2000, we had a choice. We could have had them remove their encroachments and sold the property to one of the purchasers to whom we had agreed to sell the adjoining land. Or - we could have surveyed out a parcel of land to sell those neighbors, and offered it to those neighbors at a fair price. We chose to do the latter. In fact, through our real estate agent, we even included those neighbors in helping determine the size of the parcel needed to fit their specific needs - not requiring that they purchase an entire 8 acre (Our original intent had been to survey and sell 2 (8) acre parcels of land.) parcel of land in order to obtain the land they needed. The parcel amounted to .18 acres, and including the survey, the entire purchase price was $1361.50. Our neighbors, after we had sold our 2 8 acre parcels (rendering the parcel they needed - landlocked) declined to purchase the small lot, which contained part of their septic system for the $1361.50. They first offered us $600 for the parcel, and finally offered $1000. We refused to sell it for less than the original amount of $1361.50, as we considered unfair to sell the land to them for less money than we could have sold it to the other purchasers, who had agreed to purchase full 8 acre parcels. Again, at this time, we could have pursued to have our neighbors remove the encroachments they had placed on our land, or we could have allowed them to use the land, knowing that at some point they would eventually have to purchase the parcel in order to have legal title to all of the land on which they had placed their septic system. Once again, we allowed them to use the land. Certainly, after creating a parcel of land - beyond the encroachments which were of concern, surveying, and registering the parcel, it was obvious to all we continued to own the parcel. Certainly after their attempts at negotiating the price of the parcel down, and our staunch refusal to accept anything less than the original $1361.50, we had made our position clear to our neighbors. 5 years later, in March of 2005, when faced with the knowledge that our neighbors were selling their home and lot, we again had a choice. We could have said nothing, and allowed them to sell our .18 acre lot to an unsuspecting purchaser. Or, we could have contacted our neighbors to allow them to clear up the issue in a legal and proper manner. We chose the latter. For the same parcel we had refused to accept an offer of less than $1361.50 - 5 years earlier, our neighbors offered us $806 when reminded of the fact that we owned the parcel. At that point, we could have accepted the $806 and moved on with our lives. However, that somehow didn’t sit right with us. When you have property and you have dealt fairly with someone, it has always been our belief that you are entitled to fairness in return. These neighbors had 5 years to do what we considered to be the right thing, and with their $806 offer, they assured us that they had no such intention. Yes, we could have walked away at that point - but we did not. Instead we sent them a demand letter with a rather clear intent. It stated simply that they should remove their encroachments from our parcel, or pay us $15,000 for the parcel. Shortly after this, the neighbors in fact did cut off their septic system at the line of the .18 acre parcel and reconfigure it so that it functioned fully on their legally titled property. During this same time period, I contacted the La Crosse County to question building addition setbacks, as there was a deck and a sun room addition on the rear of the home. While my questions were of a general nature, the person I contacted asked for a specific address in order to give a definitive answer to my questioning. When I provided the address, I was informed by the county representative that there were no additions on this particular property, as there were no zoning permits on record for them. At this point county ordinance required them to send the owners of the property a non-compliance notice. After receiving this notice, our neighbors choices were also obvious. We filed a complaint with the County Sheriff. (They refused to do anything.) (Notice which was sent to the plaintiffs)
They could have removed the deck and sun room, for which there were no permits found on record in the county. Or they could apply for after the fact zoning permits and variances for these additions, which were built past the setbacks allowed for property additions. They chose the latter. County Variance Notice for Plaintiffs. As a taxpayer, and neighboring landowner, I appeared at the variance hearing and spoke in opposition to the granting of their after the fact variance. (Public notice.) It was my position at that hearing that they did not follow the permitting rules, were given an opportunity to correct the problem created by not having obtained the permits in the first place - by purchasing the property at a fair market price. Since they elected not to do this, I did not and do not believe that a variance was an appropriate remedy for them.
(LaCrosse County Variance Requirements) Additionally, at this hearing, on the record, one of the 3 members of the Board of Adjustment referred to us as “Blackmailers,” during their deliberations on whether or not to grant the variance. La Crosse County Board of Adjustment Deliberations
I am unsure why this person felt it was within his purview to make this statement. Considering the statement was referencing me, I was incensed. However, in this same context, had I heard the same statement about anyone by the persons in this venue, I would have been equally outraged. This comment led me to believe that the person making the comment may have had some agenda other than deciding whether or not to grant a variance based upon the local ordinance. Whatever his purpose, the comment was very inappropriate and uncalled for.
Letter Plaintiffs' attorney sent us - telling us to turn over our property. Plaintiffs' attorney sent us these forms fill out to give them the property.
Again, at this point we had a choice - forget it and walk away, or lawfully exercise our right to protest the granting of the variance. We chose to appeal the decision of the LaCrosse County Board of Adjustment to the circuit court - as our right under Wisconsin State, and LaCrosse County law and ordinance.
Our Appeal of the Board of Adjustments' decision
This decision of the BOA was affirmed on September 16, 2005, by Judge Gonzoles. Rather than appeal this ruling, we focused our energies on defending against the lawsuit which had been initiated against us for adverse possession of our legally title parcel of land. At this point, the plaintiffs had a renter in their house, with an option to buy the house. He testified that the only reason he rented was because of the dispute. He also testified that he didn't understand why the house couldn't have been offered without the disputed property. However, at this point, when the plaintiffs, according to this man's testimony, could have sold the property if they had chosen to drop the lawsuit, they instead chose to pursue it - while "damages" began to accrue. About a month after we filed an appeal in circuit court concerning the Board of Adjustment’s determination, we were served with a summons for a lawsuit - claiming adverse possession of a parcel of our land, trespass on that land, and damages caused by us asserting our rights to possess and maintain our land (namely - damages because the plaintiffs were having difficulty selling their land because we had placed a fence on the property to which we held legal title, and they had lost potential home purchasers due to the fact that their property septic system was not fully on land to which they held legal title. Further - there were setback and variance issues, due to the fact they did not hold legal title to the piece of property on which they were now claiming adverse possession. Read the plaintiffs' complaint here. Considering the complaint was filed on 7/28/05, it is noteworthy that we were not served with this complaint until the last week of August in 2005. (24th and the 27th)
We sent an answer and counterclaim to the plaintiffs' suit. Read our answer to the complaint here. At point, and for the next several months, we represented ourselves in this suit. Therefore, this we provided this answer on our own. This is known as participating in a lawsuit pro se (representing oneself, without a lawyer).
Shortly after we filed our answer and countersuit, the plaintiffs responded with an affirmative defense. Read that response here.
We then filed a motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs and their counsel for filing a frivolous suit - one which was without merit. Letter Advising on sanctions Read those filings here.
Brief on Sanctions.
The court ignored our motions and filings.
On 10/4/05, the plaintiffs' attorney sent us:
This letter. (Interestingly, it is one threat on which he did not follow through.)
Plaintiffs sent us this form to complete. We ignored it, and they did not pursue it.
We moved the court for a change of judge, a right granted in Wisconsin Statute.
Request for a different judge. Our request was dismissed and the courts seated a different judge based on the following: Request for: Judicial Assignment. Judge Damon was assigned to our case.
About a month after we filed an appeal in circuit court concerning the Board of Adjustment’s determination, we were served with a summons for a lawsuit - claiming adverse possession of a parcel of our land, trespass on that land, and damages caused by us asserting our rights to possess and maintain our land (namely - damages because the plaintiffs were having difficulty selling their land because we had placed a fence on the property to which we held legal title, and they had lost potential home purchasers due to the fact that their property septic system was not fully on land to which they held legal title. Further - there were setback and variance issues, due to the fact they did not hold legal title to the piece of property on which they were now claiming adverse possession.
Our Complaint to the County
Letter we sent to Plaintiffs' attorney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {Here is a case that had been initiated a few years earlier - same plaintiffs, same judge, same attorney. Interestingly, it involved the septic system, which appeared to be the catalyst for the dispute in our case. {Thorn v Servais} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Keep in mind that our case was a La Crosse County Circuit Court Case. For reasons still unknown to us this case was assigned to Judge John Damon of Trempealeau County. Unanswered questions aside, this remained a La Crosse County court case, to be guided by La Crosse County rules.
La Crosse County Circuit Court rules. (Read them by clicking here.) Pay particular attention to the rule I have printed below: "435 All matters to be set on for any hearing before the court shall include in the Notice of Hearing the length of time the Court has allotted to hear the matter. This time frame will have been obtained from the appropriate Judge's judicial assistant prior to such notice being sent out. Upon receipt of said notice, should opposing counsel believe that the time allotted is insufficient to complete the matter before the court, counsel shall immediately contact the Court and opposing counsel to reschedule the matter for an appropriate length of time. If no length of time is included in the notice, the matter will not be heard. Except in unusual circumstances no matter will be allowed to proceed past the final time frame allotted. (2/6/95)"
**At no time was the above rule followed during the litigation of our case**
WI Stat 807 807.02 Motions, where heard; stay of proceedings. Except as provided in s. 807.13 or when the parties stipulate otherwise and the court approves, motions in actions or proceedings in the circuit court must be heard within the circuit where the action is triable. Orders out of court, not requiring notice, may be made by the presiding judge of the court in any part of the state. No order to stay proceedings after a verdict, report or finding in any circuit court may be made by a circuit or supplemental court commissioner. No stay of proceedings for more than 20 days may be granted except upon previous notice to the adverse party.
**Again the above statute was not followed during the litigation of our case.**
On Dec 16th, Judge Damon held the first in a series of scheduling conferences and telephone hearings. There was no court reporter for this meeting. This La Crosse County hearing was held in Trempealeau County, in Judge Damon’s Office in Whitehall. Defendants (Pam Olson) appeared in person, as well as an unrelated party, who appeared as a citizen observer. Plaintiffs’ attorney appeared by telephone. There was no record made of this scheduling conference, other than sketchy minutes taken by the judge’s assistant. Judge Damon verbally admonished Pam Olson several times during this initial meeting for not having an attorney and “strongly recommended” that she obtained legal counsel. He also queried her as to where Mr. Olson was and why he was not present. At the same time, he also made it very clear that Mrs. Olson should not appear personally at scheduling or other hearings unless directed by the court to do so. Judge Damon informed her that she could, and should appear by phone. Perhaps this is because he was holding these La Crosse County hearings at a location outside of the venue of the case. Indeed , this may raise a question of this judge’s jurisdiction of this case. While the law provides that any judge in the circuit court system may be assigned as a substitute judge, it does not provide that the case be heard in a different county, unless a change of venue has been ordered. At this hearing Mrs. Olson asked the courts’ assistance in mediating the issues of the case. When Judge Damon asked the plaintiffs’ attorney about mediation, plaintiffs’ attorney told the judge that earlier Mrs. Olson had reported him to the OLR and he had no intentions of mediating the issues of the case with her. The judge told Mrs. Olson that plaintiffs’ attorney didn’t want to talk to her about mediation and there was nothing he could do about it. The minutes of the Dec 16th conference can be
read here. Some of plaintiffs' logic lies in their trial memorandum of Law.
Of note ~ when we filed a counter-suit for trespass, in September of 2005, the 6 year statute of limitations for trespass had not yet expired, even if we were to project that the court would {erroneously} determine that the plaintiffs had adversely possessed our land as of the year 2000, we undoubtedly were entitled to counter-sue for trespass. If we are to accept the logic of the judge in our case, and his finding of fact that at "some time" in 2000 the plaintiffs had adversely possessed our land, then ~ the entire time they were using it in 1999, they were trespassers. We counter sued within the statute of limitations. However after making all other findings, the Judge stated that he would dismiss our counterclaim for trespass as - "It was with no basis on the facts the Court has found." Unfortunately this does not reconcile with his finding in favor of the plaintiffs obtaining our land by adverse possession. In order for him to legally and legitimately found the plaintiffs to be the new owners of our land via adverse possession - they had to be trespassing in 1999. Indeed, if they were not: a.) They were using the land with our permission or b.) They were not using the land. Either way, if they weren't trespassing in '99 - it is impossible for them to have adversely possessed our land. Even though Wisconsin is a state which only allows the following... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A trial court sitting in equity-as it is in an action to quiet title-it may, in exercise of its discretion, fashion a remedy which includes an award of attorney fees. Estate of Pirsch , 148 Wis.2d 425, 433, 435 N.W.2d 317, 321 (Ct. App. 1988). To do so, however, the party's conduct must be "fraudulent, shocking or in bad faith." Id. , quoting In re P.A.H ., 115 Wis.2d 670, 675, 340 N.W.2d 577, 580 (Ct. App. 1983). We review the court's determination under the erroneous-exercise-of-discretion standard: whether the court examined the relevant facts, applied a proper standard of law, and, using a demonstrated rational process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach. Loy v. Bunderson , 107 Wis.2d 400, 414-15, 320 N.W.2d 175, 184 (1982)." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...The plaintiffs in our case sought to obtain their attorney fees as an award from the court. This is the first in a series
of a detailing of attorney fees the plaintiffs sent to us. Keep in mind one of the plaintiffs is a partner in this law firm. Why we were being apprised of their mounting legal fees in this fashion, I am still a little unclear although one can only imagine how intimidating these mounting bills could be when one is being told they may well be found responsible for them. Read that ominous letter the plaintiffs' attorney sent to my husband - warning him of what was to come. It is certain that we were in possession of the land at the time the lawsuit was initiated, and were the legal title owners. It would be difficult to assert that we were not entitled to defend our right to retain our property or our conduct in that defense as: "fraudulent, shocking or in bad faith." In June of 2006, before the trial, the plaintiffs sent us an update of their legal fees.
Plaintiffs' legal fees, which were entered into evidence at the trial July 6, 2009.
Letter we sent to plaintiffs about motion to to compel and about attending deposition.
Letter sent to Plaintiffs about requested discovery.
On January 20th, 2006 our depositions were taken by the plaintiffs' attorney, and we provided the discovery materials they sought.
Later that day, a motion to compel hearing was held. Keep in mind that a "motion to compel hearing is held so the judge can order any discovery that should have been provided, but was withheld, to be provided to the requesting party. Read the transcript of that hearing here Part 1. Part 2. Part 3.
Plaintiffs' legal fees for "motion to compel" which was held after discovery was already provided to plaintiffs. We were ordered to pay $500.00 of these fees to the plaintiffs.
We paid the $500 under protest and threat of going to jail.
Plaintiffs attorney prepared the order for the judge. We had also filed a motion to compel discovery.
Plaintiffs filed a "Motion for a Protection Order" asking the judge to allow them to not provide discovery.
Interrogatories plaintiffs "answered" for us as discovery before the trial.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion in opposition to Compel discovery we requested. Part 1
On February 14th, another conference was held (Part 1). (Part 2.) Plaintiffs' Attorney sends us a letter concerning requested discovery. Interestingly, his version of events doesn't quite match the transcript.
We requested a Jury Trial. ( But it was denied.)
Minutes of March 16th, 2006 hearing. We did not obtain a transcript of this hearing.
Our Pre-trial memorandum of law
The trial was held on July 6th and 7th - 2006.
Our proposed finding of facts. (Submitted to the Judge)
Plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact, which the judge chose to adopt as part of
The judge's made his ruling on July 24th - 2006.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *Check here for a view on adverse possession.*
Our motion for the judge to reconsider his decision.
Plaintiffs' letter concerning our motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Reconsideration Judge Damon's refusal to reconsider his decision.
Read here for the exchange between attorneys on costs.
Oh - and here is an emphatic response from the plaintiffs to avoid a hearing on costs - even though there never was any objection to the costs!!! Judge Damon's letter informing all that there was no need for a hearing on costs.
**Interesting question would be - WHY WOULD SUCH A LETTER BE NECESSARY IF WE HAD NOT MADE AN OBJECTION TO THE COSTS? ( It was asserted by the Appellate Court Judges and the plaintiffs that we had not objected to the costs even though the law specifies that the costs must be filed and noticed with the clerk - seems like they were on the same {wrong} page.** Our motion for a stay of the execution of the judgment, pending the appeal. The Plaintiffs decided they did not like our signs, and a contempt motion was filed against us.
Read the "affidavits" here:
Dawn Eckleberg
Dan Arndt.
Plaintiffs' Attorney's letter complaining to Judge about our signs
A "Hearing" was held on September 29, 2006.
The hearing was held to hear our motion for a stay of the execution of the judgment, and was also used as a contempt hearing. However, the only person who appeared and testified before the judge was the plaintiffs' attorney. On many legal levels, this "hearing" was not legal. Additionally, the plaintiffs had already, while our motion for a stay was pending, transferred the property into the plaintiffs' names. Incidentally, our bank still holds the mortgage on the disputed property. However, they were not named in this lawsuit - nor did they participate in it.
Our Brief for the Appeal( part 1)
Part 2 of our brief
Plaintiffs' Response Brief (Part 1)
Waiting for the Appellate Court decision.
Letter from the Plaintiffs to the Appellate Court - questioning the length of time for and answer. (August, 2006 - September, 2008)
What is truly interesting is that the decision suddenly was ready in less than 2 weeks, certainly without our hearing from the Court of Appeals in answer to the plaintiffs' letter. We do not know it they heard from the Appellate Court or not. Appellate Court Decison (Takes you to "Appeals" page)
Garnishment #1
Plaintiffs letter to try to get money released from our letter of credit
My amendment to garnishment defense.
Garnishment #2
Amended Answer(Defense) to Earnings Garnishment Non earnings Garnishment served on us and our bank
My response to the non earnings Garnishment
Plaintiffs' affidavit in support of Garnishment
Plaintiffs' support of Garnishment
Plaintiffs' Brief in support of Garnishment
Our Bank's answer to the Garnishment
My Defense to the Non earnings garnishment
Costs Improperly added to Judgment
Plaintiffs' response to our request to correct record.
WI Stat 785 Remedial sanctions under sub. (1) (a) are sanctions imposed for the purpose of terminating a continuing contempt of court. For a remedial sanction to be entertained, there must be a motion to the court by an aggrieved person other than the trial court. Upon the filing of a motion seeking remedial sanctions for contempt, an on-the-record
hearing must be held for due process purposes and the evidence must support
findings that the contemnor engaged in intentional disobedience, resistance, or
obstruction of the authority, process, or order of a court. Reed v. Luebke, 2003 WI
App 207, 267 Wis. 2d 596, 671 N.W.2d 304, 02-2211
Here's an excerpt from Reed V Luebke:
Upon the filing of a motion seeking remedial sanctions for contempt, an on-the-record hearing must be held “for due process purposes.” See Mercury Records Prods., Inc. v. Economic Consultants, Inc., 91 Wis. 2d 482, 504, 283 N.W.2d 613 (Ct. App. 1979). The evidence adduced at the hearing must support resultant findings of fact that the contemnor engaged in “intentional … [d]isobedience, resistance or obstruction of the authority, process or order of a court.” Wis. Stat. § 785.01(1)(b). No evidentiary proceedings were conducted in this case, nor were facts stipulated to on the record that would support the necessary findings. We conclude that the lack of evidentiary proceedings, as well as the absence of proper findings to support the imposition of sanctions, violate both the requirements of ch. 785 and of due process. See Wis. Stat. § 785.03(1)(a) (“The court, after notice and hearing, may impose a remedial sanction ….” (emphasis added)); Dennis v. State, 117 Wis. 2d 249, 261, 344 N.W.2d 128 (1984) (“[S]tatutory requirements and due process require that the defendant be aware of what he must answer to so that he can be prepared to offer proof and explanation showing his good faith efforts to comply with the court’s orders.”).
We filed a motion with the appellate court to stay judge Damon's ruling at this hearing.
Plaintiffs' Motion to Prevent our Stay
The Appellate Court issued an emergency stay.
Then they lifted the stay.
The Appellate Court issued one final ruling on the topic of contempt - clearly stating that this issue was not part of the issue before them. We filed a Lis Pendis because the court would not stay the execution of the judgment . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There will be a time when loud-mouthed, incompetent people seem to be getting the best of you. When that happens, you only have to be patient and wait for them to self destruct. It never fails." ~Richard Rybolt~
(Personally, I have found the above quote not quite accurate. There will always be people who will question others' integrity ~ but to those whose integrity is not questionable - it will not matter.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Information is power when it comes to the law. Here are some links which provide further information on adverse possession of property:
Judicial Abuse Is Alive an Well (Can the problems of Judicial Immunity be Corrected?) US SECTION 1983 LITIGATION
Buteralaw
Colorado Landgrab
AP law in Different States
La Crosse Chat ( Local Forum which allows discussion about topics of interest to its members.) Blogs:
BrianMadigan's Blog
"I have been told by some legislators and reporters that adverse possession isn't a big engough problem with which to be concerned. Apparently this Wisconsin attorney has a different view. Click here to read the article by Wisconsin attorney, Jessica Shrestha"
Hey! That’s my land! Understanding Adverse
Adverse-possession disputes are
emotionally charged matters that are pervasive in Wisconsin. Recent
cases heard by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals highlight some of the many
complications of adverse possession and provide insight into how to
prove and defend adverse-possession claims and how to avoid a dispute in
by Jessica J. Shrestha
Click Here for some history and background on Adverse Possession
Adverse possession is possessing and using property for an extended period of time ~ as defined by law. In Wisconsin this period of time is 20 years. The land being possessed is not legally owned by the person occupying the property. In fact, the person possessing the property is a trespasser. Often this is referred to as squatting, or squatter’s rights. If a person occupies the property long enough, 20 years in Wisconsin, they can come to own the property, even if they legally have no claim to it. Adverse possession is a means of acquiring land or homes, without having to pay for them.
The time of occupation and/or possession prior to gaining the title of the property is illegal, in that it is trespass. If the person actually owning the property chooses, he can have people who are occupying the land, removed from the property and charged with trespassing. Adverse possession, in order to be considered so, must fit three categories of definition. The person must physically possess the property in a visible and real manner. The person also mentally possesses the property. This is sometimes called hostile possession. This means the adverse possessor restricts the use of the property by others. They must treat the property as their own, to the exclusion of all others, and particularly the record title owner. Lastly, the person’s possession of the property must be continuous. The possessor can’t leave the property for any period of time. The elements of adverse possession are that the disputed property was used for the requisite period of time in an open, notorious, visible, exclusive, hostile and continuous manner that would apprise a reasonably diligent landowner and the public that the possessor claimed the land as his or her own.
Actual possession is defined as cultivation, improvement, enclosure (fencing), or use for fuel (firewood). Just crossing property by foot or by vehicle on a trail or along utility lines does not constitute possession. There are three ways one can claim adverse possession. If a claim is based on a recorded written document and the claimant has paid property taxes on the property, the claimant must have maintained possession for seven years. If the claim is based on an inaccurate, erroneous, or imprecise written document but the claimant did not pay taxes, the time period for maintaining possession is 10 years. If there is no documentation supporting the adverse possessors use and ownership of the property, and the adverse possessor has not paid property taxes on the property, the time period for maintaining possession is 20 years (Sec. 893.25-893.32 Wisconsin Statutes). 893.25 Adverse possession, not founded on written instrument. (1) An action for the recovery or the possession of real estate and a defense or counterclaim based on title to real estate are barred by uninterrupted adverse possession of 20 years, except as provided by s. 893.14 and 893.29. A person who, in connection with his or her predecessors in interest, is in uninterrupted adverse possession of real estate for 20 years, except as provided by s. 893.29, may commence an action to establish title under ch. 841. (2) Real estate is possessed adversely under this section: (a) Only if the person possessing it, in connection with his or her predecessors in interest, is in actual continued occupation under claim of title, exclusive of any other right; and (b) Only to the extent that it is actually occupied and: 1. Protected by a substantial enclosure
2. Usually cultivated or improved
Many cases of adverse possession are naive mistakes, that don’t involve people attempting to take land to which they don‘t really believe they truly own. A poorly drawn map of a person’s property, which is incorrect, can mean people feel they have a right to possess more land than they actually own. This could cause the neighboring owner to fence off and use a small section of land. If this goes unnoticed by the title holding owner of the land, and the possession is physical, hostile and continuous, then over time the person without the right to the specific property might own it by adverse possession. The person possessing the land typically believes the land belongs to him and uses it as a true owner would.
If the record title owner of the property realizes the mistake, he or she can go to court to gain full possession of owned property. Sometimes pointing out to the neighbor that the property they fenced is adversely possessed ends adverse possession. Often the issue is over a small strip or parcel of land and can easily be resolved when surveys are done and the true lines established. This can be done without any need for court resolutions. Alternately, if the record title owner of the property really does not care about a tiny amount of land he or she may ignore the adverse possession of it, and allow the neighbor to take it over through continuous occupation. However, unless the title to this land is transferred, there is always a cloud over the ownership rights.
Other cases of adverse possessions, where trespass is willful and clearly understood, may be not as common. However, they do occur. Sometimes they result when people abandon property. A person moves into an abandoned home and adversely possess it. Or if someone wants a piece of land and does not care to purchase it, adverse possession can be implemented. Instead of buying the land they use and/or manipulate the law to gain possession and ownership of the land rather than purchasing it from the record title owner.
Homesteading laws, and mining rights were once a way of assisting people to acquire property as well as establish legitimate title to property. Adverse possession is similar to these laws. Over time, people could gain title to lands they built on, farmed, or mined, as long as they stayed on the land for the appropriate duration of time. Adverse possession became important to clear up discrepancies in surveys and other mistakes in the transfer of land prior to the present time of much more accurate records and surveys. In this day and age of accurate surveys, GPS, and information at ones fingertips it is likely we have entered a time when there are many more efficient, accurate and fair means of dealing with property line disputes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail."
Burkhardt V Smith
"The claim is made by the plaintiffs that defendant's intent was not
hostile, partly because he made a mistake in the boundary line and
partly, at least by inference, because his activity and use of the land
decreased after he discovered his mistake and he did not pay taxes on
the property. There is no merit in the argument of mistaken boundaries.
Menzner v. Tracy (1945), 247 Wis. 245, 19 N.W.2d 257; Schiro v.
Oriental Realty Co. (1956), 272 Wis. 537, 76 N.W.2d 355, 73 A.L.R.2d
1368. 'Hostile intent' does not mean a deliberate, wilful, unfriendly
animus. If the elements of open, notorious, continuous and exclusive
possession are satisfied, the law presumes the element of hostile
intent. Illinois Steel Co. v. Paczocha (1909), 138 Wis. 23, 119 N.W. 550; Meyer v.
Hope (1898), 101 Wis. 123, 77 N.W. 720. 'Hostility' means only one in
possession claims exclusive right thereto and actual possession
prevents the assumption of possession in the true owner. Mumbrue v.
Larson (1915), 160 Wis. 477, 480, 152 N.W. 150. Fifty years ago this
court stated actual occupancy of land to the exclusion of the true
owner, regardless of whether in good faith or bad faith, whether by
mistake of boundaries, or with intent to claim the land with full
knowledge the claim is wrongful, satisfies the call of the statute.
Ovig v.
Morrison (1910), 142 Wis. 243, 125 N.W. 449. The failure of the
defendant to pay taxes on parcel X8 is an element to be taken into
consideration in judging the character of the possession, but it is not
exclusive. Hamachek v.
Duvall (1908), 135 Wis. 108, 115 N.W. 634. An interesting review of the
older cases on adverse possession is found in Helm, Adverse Possession,
8 Marquette Law Review 104 (1924)."<a href='http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Search-Engine-Optimization-PHP/dp/0470100923'><img src='http://jiffycounter.com/104165.png' order='0'></a>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The following story was copied from a magazine called 'Renewed & Ready.' What a story it is, by Beverly Brass as told to her by Denny Kukich of Wood Dale, Illinois.... I put my carry-on in the luggage compartment and sat down in my assigned seat. It was going to be a long flight. 'I'm glad I have a good book to read. Perhaps I will get a short nap,' I thought. I fly frequently, and I always look for an opportunity to share God with someone. I wondered who it might be this time because there were empty seats all around me. Not much of a chance to talk to anyone. Just before take-off, a line of soldiers came down the aisle and filled all the vacant seats, totally surrounding me. 'This is more like it! OK, Lord, which one will it be? Who needs to hear about you?' I decided to start a conversation. Where are you headed?' I asked the soldier seated nearest to me. To Great Lakes Base. We'll be there for two weeks for special training, and then we're being deployed to Iraq.' After flying for about an hour, an announcement was made that sack lunches were available for five dollars. It would be several hours before we reached Chicago, and I quickly decided a lunch would help pass the time. As I reached for my wallet, I overheard a soldier ask his buddy if he planned to buy lunch. 'No, that seems like a lot of money for just a sack lunch. Probably wouldn't be worth five bucks. I'll wait till we get to Chicago.' His friend agreed. I looked around at the other soldiers. None were buying lunch. I was hungry, but could not bring myself to eat in front of them. I walked to the back of the plane and handed the flight attendant a fifty dollar bill. 'Take a lunch to all those soldiers.' She grabbed my arms and squeezed tightly. Her eyes wet with tears, she thanked me. 'My son was a soldier in Iraq. It's almost like you are doing it for him.' Picking up ten sacks, she headed up the aisle to where the soldiers were seated. I Forgot About Me! Overwhelmed by her emotional response, I returned to my seat. She asked, 'Which do you like best--beef or chicken?' 'Chicken,' I replied, wondering why she asked. She turned and went to the front of plane, returning a minute later with a dinner plate from first class. 'This is your thanks.' Now I felt guilty--I had dinner and the soldiers had only a sack lunch. After we finished eating, I went again to the back of the plane, heading for the rest room. A man stopped me. 'I saw what you did. I want to be part of it. Here, take this.' He handed me twenty-five dollars. Soon after I returned to my seat, I saw the Flight Captain coming down the aisle, looking at the aisle numbers as he walked, I hoped he was not looking for me, but noticed he was looking at the numbers only on my side of the plane. When he got to my row he stopped, smiled, held out his hand, and said, 'I want to shake your hand.' Quickly unfastening my seatbelt I stood and took the Captain's hand. With a booming voice he said, 'I was a soldier and I was a pilot. Once, someone bought me a lunch. It was an act of kindness I never forgot.' I was embarrassed when applause was heard from all of the passengers. Later I walked to the front of the plane so I could stretch my legs. A man who was seated about six rows in front of me reached out his hand, wanting to shake mine. He left another twenty-five dollars in my palm. When we landed in Chicago I gathered my belongings and started to deplane. Waiting just inside the airplane door was a man who stopped me, put something in my shirt pocket, turned, and walked away without saying a word. Another twenty-five dollars! Upon entering the terminal, I saw the soldiers gathering for their trip to the base. I walked over to them and handed them seventy-five dollars. 'It will take you some time to reach the base. It will be about time for a sandwich. God Bless You.' Ten young men left that flight feeling the love and respect of their fellow travelers. As I walked briskly to my car, I whispered a prayer for their safe return. These soldiers were giving their all for our country. I could only give them a couple of meals. It seemed so little.... "A veteran is someone who, at one
many people in this country who
no longer understand it."
My message is not about veterans, but then again, I suppose it is. They did the hard work and made the ultimate sacrifices to assure us the opportunity to live in a just and democratic society. In standing up for those rights for which they so valiantly fought, we do these men and women the greatest honor of all.
If you want to do something constructive to change a law, you must contact your representatives. Following are links to Wisconsin Government and Legal Information Sites:
Wisconsin Court System Website ( Pay special attention
to Justice Abranamson's words of welcome.)
Wisconsin Assembly Website
This site takes you right to members' email addressess and phone numbers.
Click here for some information on Wisconsin judges and the judicial system in this state.
Check Wisconsin Circuit Court Records here. Web page for the Wisconsin Judicial Commission
Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation Wisconsin bar Association WI Bar Lawyer Search (Search for lawyers, including bar numbers and attorneys entered the WI Bar, along with school at which they obtained their legal education.)
"The two most powerful warriors are patience and time." ~Leo Tolstoy~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ technical schools Copyright . Pam Pfaff- Olson. All rights reserved.