309 Wis.2d 236, 747 N.W.2d 527

Subbotin v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.

No. 2007AP001490.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.
February 28, 2008.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Dane County: C. WILLIAM FOUST, Judge. Affirmed.

HIGGINBOTHAM, P.J.[1]

[1] This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(a) (2005-06). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2005-06 version unless otherwise noted.

¶ 1. Vladimir Subbotin appeals pro se a judgment denying him attorney fees and other expenses. Because attorney fees are available only when a party appears by an attorney and Subbotin appeared pro se, we conclude the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the other requested expenses, and therefore affirm.

¶ 2. An insured of American Family Mutual Insurance Company hit and damaged Subbotin’s parked vehicle with a snowplow. After American Family denied Subbotin’s claim, Subbotin brought a small claims action against American Family. A trial de novo was held to the circuit court, which found in favor of Subbotin. The circuit court ordered American Family to pay Subbotin $937.14 in damages and $221.62 in statutory costs, for a total award of $1,158.76. Subbotin sought an additional $4,975.63 in non-statutory costs, including clothing and a fee of $75 per hour to prepare his own case. The circuit court denied these costs. Subbotin appeals.

¶ 3. Subbotin’s brief is difficult to follow and is devoid of citation to any legal authorities. See Waushara County v. Graf, 166 Wis. 2d 442, 451-53, 480 N.W.2d 16 (1992) (“[N]either a trial court nor a reviewing court has a duty . . . to point [pro se litigants] to the proper substantive law.”). However, it is apparent that Subbotin seeks certain costs that were denied by the circuit court.[2] An award of costs is a matter of circuit court discretion. WIS. STAT. § 814.07. We will affirm a circuit court’s exercise of discretion if it is “based upon the facts appearing in the record and in reliance on the appropriate and applicable law.” Hartung v.Hartung, 102 Wis. 2d 58, 66, 306 N.W.2d 16 (1981).

¶ 4. Subbotin contends that the circuit court should have awarded him costs he incurred in pursuit of the action, including clothing and labor at a rate of seventy-five dollars per hour for fifty-two hours. WISCONSIN STAT. § 814.04(1)(c) states no attorney fees may be taxed on behalf of any party unless the party appears by an attorney other than himself. Subbotin represented himself pro se throughout the litigation, and the cost of clothing is not mandated by statute. Thus, while we appreciate the significant time and financial expense Subbotin invested in his case, he is not entitled to the expenses he seeks, which are either prohibited by statute (attorney fees) or not mandated by statute (clothing). Because the circuit court’s award of costs represented a proper exercise of its discretion, we affirm.

By the Court. — Judgment and order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

[2] Subbotin makes other arguments, such as the circuit court violated his right to cross-examine witnesses. We do not address these arguments. Subbotin prevailed on the merits before the circuit court; thus, arguments relating to the merits of the case are moot because Subbotin has not been grieved.