Background
In 2022, Chris Koehler, a home improvement contractor, signed two contracts with Adam Goodman: one in July for siding, gutters, and related work at $32,890 total ($16,445 down, $16,445 upon completion), and one in August for deck replacement at $9,000 total ($3,000 down, $6,000 upon completion). Neither contract specified a completion date. Koehler installed approximately 3,200 square feet of the required 3,500 square feet of siding and left the remaining materials on the property, claiming he lacked funds to complete the work. He also never began the deck work, attributing his inaction to illness. After several months without progress, Goodman’s attorney demanded repayment, return of materials, and a lien waiver. When Koehler sent an invoice instead, Goodman hired another contractor to complete the unfinished work.
Koehler filed suit in small claims court in January 2024 seeking $9,654 for alleged labor and materials costs. Goodman counterclaimed for breach of both contracts and unjust enrichment, and also alleged six violations of Wisconsin’s home improvement contractor statute (ATCP 110), demanding double damages plus attorney fees. The case was transferred to large claims court because Goodman’s counterclaims exceeded $10,000. Koehler moved for summary judgment on his claims; the circuit court denied the motion. Goodman cross-moved for summary judgment solely on liability for the ATCP 110 violations, which the circuit court granted.
Koehler received a Notice of Hearing for a mandatory scheduling conference with explicit language stating that failure to appear would result in dismissal or judgment. Koehler did not appear and did not notify the court of his reasons. The court found him in default, dismissed all his claims, and waived all his defenses. Damages were ultimately determined to be $19,445 in compensatory damages plus double damages under ATCP 110 (through May 2026) and $12,273.50 in attorney fees and costs.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in its entirety. The court rejected Koehler’s argument that he was entitled to summary judgment on a quantum meruit theory (payment for the reasonable value of services rendered). The court held that because Koehler had breached both explicit contracts and Goodman had paid down payments in reliance on those contracts, Koehler could not recover under quantum meruit. The law provides that “a party who violates an agreement should not be permitted to recover under the contract.” Quantum meruit applies only to implied contracts, not explicit ones like those at issue here.
The court also rejected Koehler’s challenge to Goodman’s summary judgment on ATCP 110 liability. Wisconsin law explicitly permits summary judgment on liability alone without determining damages at that stage. Koehler himself admitted violating ATCP 110 by failing to include a completion date in either contract, a requirement of the statute. The court found no error in allowing Goodman to prove liability first and determine damages later.
Finally, the court upheld the default judgment against Koehler. Koehler received clear notice of the scheduling conference and adequate warning of the consequences of non-appearance. Although Koehler claims in his appeal that he felt “defeated” and chose not to attend, the court refused to disturb the default judgment because Koehler did not properly appeal it in the first instance—instead, he attempted to challenge the damages award based on the affidavit submitted after default. Once in default, Koehler cannot reassert defenses that have been waived.
Key Takeaways
- Contractors who breach explicit home improvement contracts cannot recover under quantum meruit theory, even for work partially completed or materials provided.
- Home improvement contracts must include completion dates under Wisconsin ATCP 110; failure to do so is an unfair/deceptive practice subject to double damages and attorney fees.
- Summary judgment on liability can be entered before damages are determined, and the defendant must separately challenge that liability ruling if dissatisfied.
- A party in default who fails to appear at a scheduling conference with clear notice cannot later challenge the damages component without first properly appealing the default judgment itself.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that Wisconsin courts will not use quantum meruit as an end-run around explicit contractual protections in home improvement disputes. Contractors who take down payments and fail to perform cannot claim they are entitled to payment for partial work outside the contract framework. The ruling reinforces that ATCP 110 protections exist precisely to prevent this scenario—by requiring completion dates and other specific contract terms—and that violation of the statute carries meaningful consequences including double damages.
For homeowners, the decision offers clear vindication: courts will enforce contractual terms against contractors, will award statutory damages for violations of consumer protection statutes, and will hold contractors accountable even when they represent themselves pro se. For pro se litigants generally, the decision illustrates the importance of appearing for court proceedings and properly appealing adverse rulings; failing to do so can forfeit the right to challenge later determinations.