Sandra J. Long v. Jennifer L. Russell
Opinion
OFFICE OF THE CLERK WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS 110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215 P.O. BOX 1688 MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688 Telephone (608) 266-1880 TTY: (800) 947-3529 Facsimile (608) 267-0640 Web Site: www.wicourts.gov DISTRICT II
July 15, 2026 To: Hon. J. Arthur Melvin III Mark W. Jeranek Circuit Court Judge Electronic Notice Electronic Notice Jennifer L. Russell Monica Paz Electronic Notice Clerk of Circuit Court Waukesha County Courthouse Electronic Notice
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2025AP1837 Sandra J. Long v. Jennifer L. Russell (L.C. #2024CV1040)
Before Gundrum, Grogan, and Lazar, JJ.
Summary disposition orders 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).
Jennifer L. Russell appeals from a judgment entered after the circuit court ordered her to
pay Sandra J. Long $6,764.04 plus attorney’s fees following a bench trial for a property damage
claim. Based upon our review of the briefs and Record, we conclude at conference that this case
is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21 (2023-24).1 We affirm.
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version. No. 2025AP1837
BACKGROUND
Anthony Mundschau and Jennifer Russell, who was an ex-romantic partner of
Mundschau’s, returned to Mundschau’s home in the city of West Allis, Wisconsin, on the
evening of December 31, 2022. The property is owned by Mundschau’s mother, Sandra Long,
but Mundschau lived there. Mundschau told Russell he did not want her on the property as she
was agitated and intoxicated, but briefly allowed her to enter to use the restroom.
Once Russell entered the property, a verbal fight ensued between Russell and
Mundschau, and Mundschau left the premises. After leaving the property, the West Allis Police
Department called Mundschau about a disturbance complaint at the property. Mundschau
returned to the property and found it in complete disarray, with multiple household appliances
destroyed. The next morning, Long arrived at the property and personally observed the damage
Russell caused to the home and helped her son attempt to put the property back in order.
Long and Mundschau initiated this civil case to recover damages from Russell’s criminal
behavior.2 On December 23, 2024, Long moved for summary judgment against Russell.
Ultimately, after the circuit court heard oral arguments, it denied Long’s summary judgment
motion. On June 3, 2025, the circuit court held a bench trial and found Russell liable for the
property damage claim. It awarded Long $6,764.04 in compensatory damages, along with
reasonable attorney fees. Based on “the evidence adduced at trial,” the court dismissed
Mundschau’s claims with prejudice because he failed to appear at trial.
2 Russell was criminally charged in Milwaukee County with one count of criminal damage to property and one count of disorderly conduct—domestic abuse. State v. Russell, Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 2023CM130. Russell eventually pled guilty to the charge of disorderly conduct—domestic abuse on September 21, 2023, and the charge of criminal damage to property was dismissed but read in.
2 No. 2025AP1837
On July 28, 2025, the circuit court entered a written order granting Long attorney’s fees
in the amount of $10,986.39, along with pre-judgment interest and other statutory costs. On
September 2, 2025, the judgment was entered in the amount of $19,730.92. Russell now
appeals.3
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Russell raises five issues. Russell argues the circuit court erred in:
(1) crediting Long’s testimony; (2) dismissing Mundschau’s claims and ruling solely on Long’s
claims; (3) denying Russell’s motions for a new trial; (4) dismissing Russell’s cost motions; and
(5) awarding $10,986.39 in attorney’s fees without statutory authority. We conclude that Russell
failed to adequately develop any of her arguments and failed to provide this court with a trial
transcript needed to determine whether the circuit court erred. Thus, she failed to meet her
burden of proof, and we affirm the judgment.
As the appellant, it is Russell’s burden “to demonstrate that the [circuit] court erred[.]”
Seltrecht v. Bremer, 214 Wis. 2d 110, 125, 571 N.W.2d 686 (Ct. App. 1997). It is also her
“responsibility to ensure completion of the appellate record and ‘when an appellate record is
incomplete in connection with an issue raised by the appellant, we must assume that the missing
3 Long filed a timely motion asserting that Russell’s appeal was frivolous and seeking costs. We deny the motion because it does not meet either one of the two necessary criteria: (1) the appeal was filed “in bad faith, solely” to harass or maliciously injure another party, or (2) “[t]he party … knew, or should have known, that the appeal … was without any reasonable basis in law or equity and could not be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” WIS. STAT. § 809.25(3)(c)(1)-(2). Although we note that Russell’s arguments were underdeveloped, requiring us to affirm the judgment, we are not convinced her arguments meet the frivolous standard.
3 No. 2025AP1837
material supports the [circuit] court’s ruling.’” State v. McAttee, 2001 WI App 262, ¶5 n.1, 248
Wis. 2d 865, 637 N.W.2d 774 (citation omitted).
First, Russell fails to apply the facts of her case to the law she cites and fails to develop a
sufficient legal argument to support any of her claims. In her brief, for each issue raised, Russell
makes a conclusory statement and cites a case and/or statute without application or explanation.
Every issue she raises is insufficiently developed. See Clean Wis., Inc. v. PSC, 2005 WI 93,
¶180 n.40, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768 (stating that “[w]e will not address undeveloped
arguments”).
Second, Russell did not include the trial transcript that details the reasons for the circuit
court’s decision, or the necessary facts to establish her claim. As the appellant, it is Russell’s
burden “to demonstrate that the [circuit] court erred,” Seltrecht, 214 Wis. 2d at 125, and provide
a complete record for our review. McAttee, 248 Wis. 2d 865, ¶5 n.1. It is not our responsibility
to develop arguments for a party, “and we will not abandon our neutrality” to do so for Russell.
See Industrial Risk Insurers v. American Eng’g Testing, Inc., 2009 WI App 62, ¶25, 318 Wis.
2d 148, 769 N.W.2d 82.
If the circuit court’s reasons for ruling in Long’s favor were erroneous, it is Russell’s
responsibility to show us what those reasons were—by providing a transcript from the trial
where the court explained its reasons—and how they were erroneous under the law. Russell is
unable to demonstrate that the circuit court erred because the court’s reasons for ruling as it did
are not included in the record. The court’s decision is based on the evidence adduced at trial, and
therefore Russell’s failure to include the trial transcript on appeal is fatal to her claims. Every
issue depends on a review of the transcript. When an appellant fails to provide us with a
4 No. 2025AP1837
transcript, “we presume that every fact essential to sustain the circuit court’s decision is
supported by the record.” Butcher v. Ameritech Corp., 2007 WI App 5, ¶35, 298 Wis. 2d 468,
727 N.W.2d 546.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sandra J. Long v. Jennifer L. Russell (Sandra J. Long v. Jennifer L. Russell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.