Legal Opinion · Concurrence

J. Steven Tikalsky v. Susan Friedman

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 2019No. 2017AP000170Published

1Concurrence

ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J. (concurring).

*522¶45 I join the majority but concur and write separately to further clarify the issue we were called upon to decide, which is, whether a constructive trust is an independent cause of action. Because it is not and instead is a remedy, Terry Stevens ("Stevens") must be dismissed from this action. Stated differently, it is undisputed that Steven Tikalsky ("Tikalsky") alleged only two causes of action against Stevens: (1) unjust enrichment and (2) constructive trust. As the unjust enrichment claim was dismissed, we are left to decide whether a…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public SchoolsSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Watts v. WattsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Hoida, Inc. v. M & I MIDSTATE BANKWisconsin Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Strid v. ConverseWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Tucker v. MarcusWisconsin Supreme Court · 1988

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API