Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
NOTICE
DECISION
DATED AND FILED                                                                       This opinion is subject to further editing.   If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
December 6, 2001
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
                                                                                      Cornelia G. Clark                                               petition to review an adverse decision by the
                                                                                      Clerk of Court of Appeals                                       Court of Appeals.   See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
                                                                                                                                                      and RULE 809.62.
                                                                                                                                                      Cir. Ct. No.   99-CV-349
Appeal No.                                                                            00-3266
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                                                                                    IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
GHEORGHE JUGUREANU AND TUDORITA JUGUREANU,
PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS,
V.
JOHN CRETU AND MICHAELA CRETU,
RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Sauk
County:  JAMES EVENSON, Judge.  Affirmed.
Before Vergeront, P.J., Roggensack and Deininger, JJ.
¶1                                                                                    PER CURIAM.    John and Michaela Cretu appeal from a judgment
in favor of Gheorghe and Tudorita Jugureanu and from an order denying their
motion to reconsider.    The issues are:  (1) whether the trial court misused its
discretion in refusing to continue the trial;  (2) whether the trial court properly




No.   00-3266
partitioned the property; and (3) whether the trial court properly denied the motion
for reconsideration.   We affirm.
¶2                                                                                        The Cretus and the Jugureanus, as tenants in common, own two lots
with a residential structure designed for two families on Lake Redstone, in Sauk
County.   They also own a condominium in Illinois as tenants in common.   The
Jugureanus filed an action for partition of the property on Lake Redstone.   After a
trial to the court, the trial court awarded Lot 10, with a value of $46,000, to the
Cretus, and Lot 11, with a value of $125,000, to the Jugureanus, and ordered the
Jugureanus pay the Cretus  $39,500 to make up for the difference in valuation
between the two lots.   The residence is located on Lot 11.   The trial court also
reduced the $39,500 payment by $2,494 to reimburse the Jugureanus for costs they
had incurred to maintain the property.
¶3                                                                                        The Cretus first argue that the trial court misused its discretion in
refusing to continue the trial.   Whether to grant a request for a continuance is
committed to the trial court’s discretion.    Robertson-Ryan & Assocs., Inc. v.
Pohlhammer, 112 Wis. 2d  583,  587, 334 N.W.2d 246 (1983).   The trial court
misuses its discretion if it  “fail[s] to exercise its discretion or if there  [is] no
reasonable basis for its decision.”   Id.   John Cretu requested the continuance on
the first day of trial, contending that he believed a mediation agreement between
the parties had settled the matter outside of court, and he was therefore unprepared
to  present  evidence.    The  Jugureanus  argued  that  the  trial  court  should  not
continue the trial because the Cretus had not taken steps necessary to effectuate
the  mediation  agreement,  and  the  Jugureanus  had  therefore  withdrawn  from
mediation and had informed the Cretus by letter that they had done so.   The trial
court refused to continue the trial because the case had been scheduled for trial for
over three months, and the parties had not informed the court that they had entered
2




No.   00-3266
into a mediation agreement that would possibly affect the scheduling of the trial.
The trial court explained the basis for its decision, and its decision was reasonable.
Therefore, there was no misuse of discretion.
¶4                                                                                          The Cretus next argue that the trial court erred in partitioning the
property.   The Cretus contend that the trial court should have partitioned the house
down the middle and drawn a boundary line between the two lots to equalize the
size and lake frontage of the two lots.   The trial court denied the Cretus’ request
because the Cretus and Jugureanus were unable to cooperate, an assertion well-
supported by the record, and the partition proposed by the Cretus would only
exacerbate the problems between them.   The trial court awarded the Jugureanus
the lot with the dwelling because evidence had been presented that they had lived
at the property, while the Cretus had not finished the inside of their half of the
residence and had only recently shown interest in the property.   The trial court’s
partition order and the offsetting payment it ordered comply with WIS. STAT.
ch. 842 (1999-2000),1 the partition statute, in all respects.   The trial court properly
applied the statute to the facts of this case and explained its reasons for ordering
the partition as it did.   Therefore, there is no merit to the Cretus’ claim.
¶5                                                                                          Finally, the Cretus argue that the trial court should not have denied
their request for reconsideration.   After partition was ordered, the Cretus obtained
appraisals showing that Lot 11 had a substantially higher value than that found by
the trial court.   The trial court properly refused to consider this new information
because the Cretus had failed to make an adequate showing that their failure to
1  All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 1999-2000 version unless otherwise
noted.
3




No.   00-3266
present this evidence at trial was justified.   The Cretus contend that a new trial
should be held to revise the  $39,500 equalizing payment, which was offset by
$2,494 in maintenance costs, to take into account money they spent maintaining a
property  in  Illinois.    Any  dispute  between  the  parties  regarding  the  Illinois
property was beyond the scope of this partition action.   The Cretus are not entitled
to a new trial.
By the Court.—Judgment and order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published.   WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.
4

Download 3341.pdf

Wisconsin Law