A dispute over the management of two family trusts in Wisconsin has resulted in an appeals court upholding a contempt finding against a brother who failed to provide requested financial documents to his sister. The case centred on whether his attempt to disqualify his sister’s lawyer justified delaying his discovery responses.In a November 10, 2026, decision in Anne M Bartnik v. Todd A Mackoway, available in Justia, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed a Marathon County Circuit Court order finding Todd A Mackoway in remedial contempt. The court concluded that he had other legal options to address the discovery deadline but failed to use them.
Sister sought brother’s removal as trustee
The dispute began on February 17, 2025, when Anne M Bartnik filed a verified petition seeking to remove her brother as successor general trustee of their mother Shirley Mackoway’s two trusts. Bartnik alleged that Mackoway had breached his fiduciary duties by failing to administer the trusts effectively, prudently, impartially and in good faith. She also argued that his alleged hostility towards her made him unsuitable to continue as trustee.She asked the court to require him to provide complete trust accounting records, including information about property, liabilities, receipts and disbursements. Her petition also sought inventories, supporting documents and judicial review of his conduct as their mother’s healthcare and financial agent. Mackoway filed a motion to dismiss the claims concerning his conduct as their mother’s agent in March 2025. The court initially stayed discovery but denied his motion on July 24. He filed his response to the petition the following month.
Dispute over discovery and lawyer’s disqualification
On September 24, 2025, Bartnik served Mackoway with written discovery requests, including interrogatories and document production requests. He was required to respond within 30 days. On October 22, Mackoway’s lawyer contacted Bartnik’s attorney, Mary Sue Anderson, claiming that Mackoway had previously consulted her about the same matter as a prospective client. He argued that the consultation required Anderson to withdraw from representing his sister.Mackoway filed a motion seeking Anderson’s disqualification and informed Bartnik’s legal team that he would not attend a scheduled deposition or provide written discovery responses until the issue was resolved. Bartnik filed motions for remedial contempt and to compel discovery on October 27, arguing that her brother had neither met his obligations nor sought an extension or protective order.The circuit court rejected the disqualification motion on January 5, 2026. Mackoway sent his discovery responses on January 23, but the production remained incomplete. Bartnik’s attorney, Mary Sue Anderson, said she had received no substantive documents in response to requests one through seven, some documents for request eight, and nothing for requests nine through 14.
Circuit court found contempt over missed deadline
At a February 4, 2026, hearing, the circuit court distinguished between Mackoway’s failure to attend his deposition and his failure to provide written discovery responses. It accepted that his decision not to attend the deposition was made in good faith while the disqualification motion remained pending. However, it found that his written responses had been due on October 24, 2025, and that the pending motion did not automatically suspend that obligation.The court noted that Mackoway had not sought an extension or stay before the deadline. It ordered him to provide complete responses by February 11, 2026, and pay Bartnik’s reasonable attorney fees relating to the contempt motion.
Appeals court upheld contempt finding
Mackoway appealed, arguing that his failure to respond was not intentional because he believed discovery should pause until the court decided the disqualification issue. The appeals court disagreed, explaining that an intentional refusal to produce requested records can constitute contempt under Wisconsin law. Mackoway could have formally objected to the requests, sought a protective order or asked the court to delay the response deadline.Instead, he allowed the deadline to pass without obtaining court approval. The appeals court also noted that he failed to provide complete responses immediately after the disqualification motion was denied. It rejected his argument that the circuit court had treated his deposition absence and written discovery failure inconsistently. The deposition raised separate concerns about potentially confidential information shared during the alleged consultation, while the written requests related generally to the claims in Bartnik’s petition.The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt order on November 10, 2026. The ruling addresses the discovery dispute, not the underlying allegations of trustee misconduct or whether Mackoway should ultimately be removed.
About The Author
