Balskus v. Wanezek, Jaekels, Daul & Babcock, S.C.

• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Docket Number: 2024AP1114
• Decision Date: 14 April 2026
• Citation: Balskus v. Wanezek, Jaekels, Daul & Babcock, S.C., 2024AP1114 (Wis. App. Apr 14, 2026)
• Parties: Michael J. Balskus, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wanezek, Jaekels, Daul & Babcock, SC, Defendant-Respondent, Jane Doe and ABC Insurance, Defendants.

1

Michael J. Balskus, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wanezek, Jaekels, Daul & Babcock, SC, Defendant-Respondent, Jane Doe and ABC Insurance, Defendants.

No. 2024AP1114

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District III

April 14, 2026

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Brown County No 2023CV706: D. TODD EHLERS, Judge.

Before Stark, P. J., Hruz, and Gill, JJ.

Per curiam opinions 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).

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Michael J. Balskus, pro se,^[1] appeals an order dismissing his claims against Wanezek, Jaekels, Daul & Babcock, S.C ("the Wanezek Firm"). The circuit court concluded that Balskus's claims are barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. We agree and, accordingly, affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 This appeal arises out of a lawsuit filed by Balskus against the Wanezek Firm and one of its attorneys, Gregory Babcock. According to Balskus's complaint, Balskus's ex-wife Mary Ellen Balskus, retained Attorney Babcock to represent her in postdivorce litigation between Mary Ellen and Balskus ("the family law case").^[2] On or about June 30, 2020 Attorney Babcock filed a "Notice of Motion and Motion for Contempt of Court and for Further Relief on Mary Ellen's behalf. Prior to an August 21, 2020 hearing on that motion, Attorney Babcock filed an exhibit that consisted of "bi-weekly records of paycheck stubs on the account of Michael J. Balskus for his employment as an Assistant District Attorney for Winnebago County for the time period of 10/14/2018 through 10/12/2019."

¶3 After questioning how Attorney Babcock had obtained those records, Balskus learned that on June 8, 2020, Attorney Babcock had served on the "State of Wisconsin Department of Administration—State Prosecutors" a subpoena duces tecum demanding the production of:

1. All payroll records for Michael J. Balskus from January 1 2018 to present, including gross income, deductions and net income from each payroll check. Payroll records including but are not limited to wages, vacation/sabbatical pay, sick leave accrual, etc.

2. All employment records for Michael J. Balskus from his application for employment with Winnebago District Attorney through today's date.

3. A copy of any retirement plan sponsored by Winnebago District Attorney in which Michael J. Balskus has any interest.

According to Balskus's complaint in the instant case, a representative of the Department of Administration "complied with the subpoena believing that it was properly issued." The complaint further alleged that, at the time the subpoena was issued, Attorney Babcock "had not filed any motion to hold [Balskus] in contempt" and "had not scheduled any depositions on the matter."

¶4 Balskus's complaint alleged that the subpoena issued by Attorney Babcock in the family law case "intentionally requested information that violated [Balskus's] privacy interests" and that Attorney Babcock intentionally "failed to follow the requirements of [WIS. STAT. §] 805.07(2)(b) [(2023-24)^[3] by failing to give [Balskus] notice that [Balskus] could preserve his right to object to the documents that were requested." The complaint further asserted that Attorney Babcock's "conduct was extreme and outrageous by purposely ignoring the requirements of [§] 805.07(2)(b) and by his subsequent conduct" in failing to reveal where he had obtained the records in question. The complaint also asserted that Attorney Babcock's conduct "caused severe and permanent emotional, psychological and economic injuries to" Balskus; that because of Attorney Babcock's "abuse of process," Balskus "has suffered damage, including emotional distress from the harassment... related to the illegal use and abuse of his subpoena powers"; and that Attorney Babcock's conduct "simulated legal process by directing the State to produce confidential records in order to get an advantage over [Balskus] and to induce a payment for a claim made by [Mary Ellen]." The complaint sought both compensatory and punitive damages.

¶5 Attorney Babcock and the Wanezek Firm filed a motion to dismiss Balskus's claims, as well as a motion for summary judgment. The motion to dismiss asserted that Balskus's claims were barred by the doctrines of attorney immunity and issue preclusion and that the complaint failed to state a claim for abuse of process. The motion for summary judgment argued that the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over Attorney Babcock and the Wanezek Firm because they were not properly served. The court agreed that Attorney Babcock was not properly served and, as a result, granted partial summary judgment and dismissed him from the case.

¶6 With respect to issue preclusion, the Wanezek Firm argued that Balskus's current claims regarding the improper issuance of the subpoena had already been raised and rejected in the family law case. In support of that argument, the Wanezek Firm submitted a "Motion to Dismiss Respondent's Motion for Contempt and For Other Sanctions" that Balskus had filed in the family law case on January 22, 2021, in which Balskus sought to dismiss Mary Ellen's contempt motion and also sought "sanctions including costs" based on the allegedly improper issuance of the subpoena.

¶7 The Wanezek Firm also submitted a "Decision and Order Amending Judgment" that was issued by a court commissioner in the family law case on March 15, 2021. Among other things, that order denied Balskus's "Motion to Dismiss Respondent's Motion for Contempt and For Other Sanctions." The court commissioner explained that Attorney Babcock "acknowledges that he did not send a copy [of the subpoena] to [Balskus] and should have," but that Attorney Babcock "indicates that this was an unintentional oversight." The court commissioner further reasoned that "[t]he information requested within the subpoena, particularly the pay stubs, would likely have been deemed discoverable and any objection by [Balskus] to its release would likely have been denied." The court commissioner also rejected Balskus's argument that there were no motions pending before the court at the time the subpoena was issued.

¶8 Mary Ellen sought de novo review of other aspects of the court commissioner's March 15, 2021 order. In further support of its motion to dismiss in the instant case, the Wanezek Firm submitted a transcript of the de novo hearing, during which the circuit court in the family law case stated the following with respect to Balskus's arguments regarding the subpoena:

[T]he statutes are there for a reason and I'm not sitting here as a judge stating that we should ignore statutes, but it's just not the type of violation, if there is a violation, if there was a violation, that—I mean, it's an oversight and I can't—I have no evidence that Mr. Babcock was playing any sort of gamesmanship or anything else. If it did happen, it was an oversight and it's been remedied, and I'm not about to find anybody in contempt or dismiss the case or anything like that based on that type of conduct.

¶9 Balskus filed a brief in opposition to the Wanezek Firm's motion to dismiss and, like the Wanezek Firm, submitted multiple documents to the circuit court in support of his position. Among those documents was the circuit court's written decision in the family law case on Mary Ellen's motion for de novo review of the court commissioner's decision. In that decision, the court acknowledged Balskus's argument "that his Motion to Dismiss should have been granted," but the court questioned whether that issue was properly before it, given that Balskus did not seek de novo review of the court commissioner's decision on that issue. Regardless, the court stated that it agreed with the court commissioner's reasoning and "incorporate[d] it by reference." The court explained:

Attorney Babcock admitted that he mistakenly did not send a copy of the subpoena to [Balskus]. He should have done so. Nevertheless, dismissal of the action would be a drastic remedy for such a failure to follow the statute. This is especially true when the information was likely discoverable and the subpoena likely would have been granted even had [Balskus] had notice of it and sought a protective order.

¶10 The circuit court in the family law case specifically rejected Balskus's argument that Attorney Babcock had improperly used the subpoena to obtain Balskus's performance evaluations. The court stated:

Under Wisconsin's discovery statutes, Attorney Babcock was able to obtain discovery of any information which was relevant. It need not be admissible to be discoverable. [See Wis. Stat. §] 804.01(2)(a). The bar for relevancy under this statute is low. Given the language in the [marital settlement agreement] about [Balskus's] obligation to work and not retire until a certain age, information about how he was performing and what he told his employer meets the minimal standard of relevancy under the statute, even if this information might not be admissible at trial.

¶11 The circuit court in the family law case also rejected Balskus's argument that "an action was not pending" at the time the subpoena was issued. The court reasoned that "[t]he divorce case was pending, even if the motion for contempt had not yet been filed," and that Attorney Babcock "was allowed to issue a subpoena within the context of the divorce proceeding, regardless of when his motion was filed."

¶12 Based on the parties' submissions, the circuit court in the instant case granted the Wanezek Firm's motion to dismiss Balskus's claims on issue preclusion grounds. In its oral ruling, the court explained that the doctrine of issue preclusion

forecloses re-litigation in

...