Przytarski v. Vallejos

371 Wis.2d 565

884 N.W.2d 535 (Table)

Stephanie M. PRZYTARSKI, p/k/a Stephanie M. Kramschuster, Petitioner–Appellant,

v.Ted B. VALLEJOS, Respondent–Respondent.

No. 2015AP1912.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

July 12, 2016.

¶ 1 PER CURIAM.

Stephanie Przytarski, pro se, appeals the June 17, 2015 findings and order¹ of the Honorable Frederick C. Rosa² stating that “[t]he order for support entered by AFCC Rauly Sandoval, on June 13, 2013, remains in effect and was not modified at the subsequent hearings.” On June 13, 2013, Court Commissioner Sandoval ordered that Przytarski pay child support in the amount of $524 per month, effective February 1, 2013, to the father of her child, Ted Vallejos. Przytarski contends that there is no valid child support order because the June 13, 2013 order of the court commissioner “dissolved as if it never existed” when, on November 14, 2014, Judge Rosa ruled on her motion for de novo review³ without addressing child support.

¶ 2 We conclude that Przytarski abandoned her challenge to the June 13, 2013 child support order. The record conclusively shows that although she checked the box for a de novo review of the child support (as well as the custody and placement issues), she never once even mentioned child support, much less argued for modification of it, in the seventeen months, ten or more motions, and eight hearings held between filing her motion for a de novo review and the trial court's final decision on the de novo motion on November 14, 2014. Additionally, when Judge Rosa concluded the fifth and final day of the court trial on Przytarski's motion for de novo review and Judge Rosa failed to mention child support, Przytarski never objected or asked for a ruling on child support. Issues pled but not argued before the trial court are deemed abandoned. Eckes v. Keith, 143 Wis.2d 209, 210 n. 1, 420 N.W.2d 417 (Ct.App.1988). See also Santiago v. Ware, 205 Wis.2d 295, 311 n. 10, 556 N.W.2d 356 (Ct.App.1996). Consequently, we affirm the decision of June 17, 2015. The June 13, 2013 child support order stands.

BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Przytarski is, by any measure, highly litigious. We need not describe all of her lawsuits, motions, or appeals relating to this paternity matter because this appeal is solely taken from a child support order. Przytarski and Vallejos have a child who was born August 6, 2006. A paternity action was filed in Waukesha County Circuit Court Case No.2006PA390. Vallejos was adjudicated the father on January 30, 2007. Przytarski filed multiple motions, and numerous hearings were held in the Waukesha County Circuit Court; the online CCAP court record from Waukesha County is sixty-one pages long. On July 12, 2012, while most of the Waukesha rulings were up on appeal to this court, Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Lloyd V. Carter granted Przytarski's request to change venue to Milwaukee County. Przytarski raised many issues in that appeal, some decided in a Summary Disposition on July 24, 2013,⁴ and some others in an authored, unpublished decision of the same date,⁵ but she did not raise child support. We affirmed all of the orders of the Waukesha County Circuit Court.

¶ 4 Przytarski continued to file custody and placement motions in Milwaukee County after the change in venue. On December 29, 2012, the Milwaukee County District Attorney filed a criminal complaint charging Przytarski with interference with custody. (See Milwaukee County Circuit Court Case No.2012CF6183.) Ultimately, in May 2013 that case resulted in Przytarski's guilty plea and a no-contact order prohibiting Przytarski from having contact with Vallejos and the child. Other conditions for probation included a mental health evaluation, anger management, and parenting classes.

¶ 5 On September 13, 2012, Przytarski filed a motion in this case to modify custody and placement that was set before the Milwaukee court commissioner for February 1, 2013. She did not request a child support order. On January 29, 2013, Vallejos filed a motion for modification of custody, placement, and child support. He sought a child support modification as he had sole placement of the child and yet child support was still being deducted under the Waukesha order.

¶ 6 On February 1, 2013, Assistant Family Court Commissioner Rauly Sandoval held a hearing on Przytarski's motion, but not Vallejos's. Not surprisingly, since she did not seek a child support order, it was not mentioned. Because the Waukesha rulings were then still being appealed, Sandoval put the hearing over without entering any orders. Przytarski filed a motion for a de novo review of Sandoval's order of February 1, but did not mention child support in her motion. Przytarski then filed motions for an emergency ex parte placement order and a motion for sanctions, and her parents filed a motion for grandparent visitation.

¶ 7 On June 13, 2013, Milwaukee County Assistant Family Court Commissioner Rauly Sandoval issued an order on Vallejos' motion for custody, placement, and child support from Przytarski, finding that the criminal case no-contact order was still in effect and placement of the child had been with Vallejos since December 12, 2012. Sandoval ordered Przytarski to pay Vallejos $524 in monthly child support effective February 1, 2013, based on Przytarski's monthly income of $3083.00.

¶ 8 Przytarski brought a motion for a de novo review of Sandoval's June 13, 2013 order and in it she checked the box for review of child support, as well as custody and placement. In support of her request for de novo review she filed a four-paragraph “Motion To Review Child Support And To Invalidate The Order Filed 6/13/13,” expressing many concerns about placement but making no mention of child support. Her de novo hearing was set for August 6, 2013, before Judge Rosa.

¶ 9 While her motion for de novo review was awaiting hearing, this court, in a Summary Disposition on July 24, 2013, affirmed the Waukesha orders relating to the appointment of the Guardian ad Litem, placement, filing fees, and a payment schedule for the court-appointed psychologist, and made a finding that her motions were frivolous. See State v. Przytarski, No.2012AP646, unpublished slip op. (WI App July 24, 2013). In a separate authored decision, we also affirmed orders relating to an order finding her in contempt for violating orders regarding Vallejos' placement, facilitating Skype communication, and joint decision making, and from an order resolving, among other things, her responsibility for outstanding guardian ad litem and psychologist bills. State v. Przytarski, No.2012AP1413, unpublished slip op. (WI App July 24, 2013).

¶ 10 Two days later, on July 26, 2013, Przytarski continued to file motions while still awaiting the de novo review hearing, which had been set for August 6, 2013. She filed a motion to modify custody and placement, and to supplement a motion she filed back on September 13, 2012. She also filed a motion for contempt relating to an alleged placement issue. In neither motion did she make any mention of child support. There followed motions by Przytarski's parents related to grandparent visitation and the court's decision on those.

¶ 11 On August 6, 2013, Judge Rosa held the first of five court hearings on Przytarski's de novo review of the June 13, 2013 order, as well as seven other motions. Despite the fact that Przytarski represented herself and spoke extensively at the hearing on other issues, she never mentioned child support.

¶ 12 Subsequently, there followed a series of seven more hearings before the judge or court commissioner at which Przytarski appeared and spoke, but never mentioned child support and never objected to the absence of an order on child support:

• On September 4, 2013, a hearing was held regarding grandparent visitation.

• On October 29, 2013, a court trial was held regarding psychological evaluations of Przytarski, Vallejos, and the child.

• On February 3, 2014, a court trial was held regarding grandparent visitation.

• On May 9, 2014, a hearing was held regarding several motions Przytarski filed, none addressing child support.

• On June 26, 2014, a court trial regarding visitation was held before Judge Rosa, and he signed an order on July 31, 2014, which sets forth the parameters of the grandparents' visitation with the child.

• On October 10, 2014, a court trial was held regarding custody and placement and grandparent visitation. Child support was not addressed.

• On May 21, 2015, a hearing was held before Circuit Court Commissioner David R. Pruhs regarding a motion Przytarski filed to review the primary placement and custody order issued November 14, 2014. Commissioner Pruhs denied Przytarski's motion.

¶ 13 After five days of court trial on Przytarski's motions for de novo review of the June 13, 2013 order, on November 14, 2014, Judge Rosa issued the final findings and an order regarding custody and placement and GAL fees. It made no mention of child support, and Przytarski failed to object to the omission of child support from the order.⁶

¶ 14 Przytarski continued to file other motions and objections, and finally, on June 17, 2015, in the order Przytarski appeals from here, Judge Rosa addressed a motion of the Milwaukee County Department of Child Support Enforcement and issued findings and an order that “the order for support entered by AFCC Rauly Sandoval on June 13, 2013, remains in effect and was not modified at the subsequent hearings.” Przytarski responded to that on August 13, 2015, by filing a notice of motion and motion for clarification regarding orders for child support issued July 24, 2007; June 13, 2013; and June 17, 2015.

¶ 15 On August 27, 2015, Judge Van Grunsven conducted a hearing on Przytarski's motion and found that the time for a de novo review of the child support orders had run. The circuit court further held:

Judge Rosa ruled on all this stuff, Ms. Przytarski, in June, and I have a copy of his ... November 14, 2014, order, and I don't know why you insist on

...