Kraemer v. Grant County

Facts

Lawton, the attorney, was contacted by Laura Kraemer. Kraemer who told him that Herbert Hottenstein, the sheriff of Grant County, Wisconsin, had conspired with the Bakers to evict her from her home and steal her belongings. Lawton asked Kraemer to write a detailed letter explaining what had happened. She and her fiancé Steven Baker had been living together, and they discovered a house for rent in rural Grant County, and they chose to take it. The landlord demanded a $150 security deposit and $150 per month in rent, and Steven Baker agreed to pay it. A couple of days later Kraemer gave the landlord $100, and she got the key. The rest of the rent was never paid because Steven Baker was killed in a work-related accident on May 8. At the funeral, Baker's parents asked Kraemer if they could come over to the house to pick up Steven’s belongings the next day. Kraemer reluctantly gave her permission. Before going home, Kraemer stopped at a friend's house. When she finally returned home, she found that almost everything had been taken from the house, and she found a note from Betty Baker stating that they had taken the things they wanted. Kraemer immediately notified the sheriff's department. The sheriff's officer on duty told them to return what they had taken by 10:30 the next morning, May 11. At that time, however, Sheriff Hottenstein himself came out to Kraemer's house and said that the Bakers were within their rights. While Kraemer and the sheriff were talking, the Bakers arrived. Sheriff Hottenstein ordered Kraemer to turn her car keys and ownership papers over to the Bakers, telling her that the car was both unregistered and unsafe and that the Bakers would make sure the car was not driven in that condition. Kraemer went to visit her mother and when she, she found a note on the front door, signed by a sheriff's deputy, which read: 'To whom it may concern -- Nothing is to be removed from the premises until you contact Grant County Sheriff's Department.' The electricity had been cut off on orders of the Bakers. Kraemer went to the utility company and ordered service restored. When she got back to the house, on June 4, she met the landlord and tried to give him the money owing on May's rent, but it was refused, and he told her to hold off until she could straighten things out with the Bakers. At that time, someone from the utility company arrived to hook up the electricity, but the landlord objected. Kraemer convinced the man to leave the power on at least for the night. That evening, Sheriff Hottenstein returned and told Kraemer that she had to leave the house right then. The next day, the sheriff and the Bakers watched as Kraemer moved her belongings out of the house. On July 29, when Kraemer was five months pregnant, she had another brush with the law. She was arrested by a Wisconsin State Patrol officer for driving with a defective brake light. She was unable to produce a valid driver's license (the trooper knew the license was on file with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation), or the $33 bond required for that offense, and she was jailed for several hours until someone posted bond for her. On the strength of this letter, Lawton made an administrative claim against the county on Kraemer's behalf for damages. Lawton then hired a private investigator to look into the allegations Kraemer had made. He was unable to confirm or to discredit any part of the story except that he had been given a statement by one of the Bakers' relatives saying that she had been with the Bakers when they took property out of Kraemer's house and that she felt that action was 'wrong.' The investigator reported that the potential defendants had been 'hostile.' A suit was filed against the Bakers and Hottenstein under Section 1983 and 1343 seeking damages. Many of the allegations of the complaint are undisputed. The complaint stated a claim sufficient to withstand a motion for dismissal under FRCP 12(b)(6). Through discovery, it was learned that there had been lengthy and frequent telephone conversations between the Bakers and the sheriff's office. Even so, Lawton could not get facts sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. The Bakers requested that the court require Kraemer or Lawton to pay their legal fees in defending a frivolous or vexatious action. The court found against Lawton under FRCP. 11. The court ordered Lawton to pay $3,000 of the Bakers' total legal bill of about $8,000. Lawton filed a motion to amend findings under FRCP. 52(b), which was denied on December 14, 1988. This appeal resulted.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.