The Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling against Todd A. Mackoway, finding him in contempt for failing to respond to discovery requests in a family trust dispute. This decision affects the ongoing legal battle between Mackoway and his sister, Anne M. Bartnik, over the management of their mother’s trusts.

The case, Anne M. Bartnik v. Todd A. Mackoway (2026AP001092), centers on allegations that Mackoway breached his fiduciary duty as trustee. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of complying with discovery requests in legal proceedings.

Background

Anne M. Bartnik filed a petition in February 2025 to remove her brother, Todd A. Mackoway, as the successor trustee of their mother Shirley Mackoway’s trusts. Bartnik claimed that Mackoway had not managed the trusts effectively and that his hostility toward her made him unsuitable for the role. Along with his removal, she sought various forms of judicial relief, including a full accounting of the trusts and access to their mother's health care records.

In March 2025, Mackoway responded by filing a motion to dismiss parts of Bartnik's petition, which led to a stay on all discovery proceedings. The circuit court denied his motion in July, and Bartnik subsequently served Mackoway with written discovery requests in September 2025. However, Mackoway did not respond to these requests in a timely manner, leading Bartnik to file motions for contempt and to compel discovery in October 2025.

The Ruling

The circuit court held a hearing in February 2026 regarding Bartnik's motions. While it found that Mackoway's failure to attend a scheduled deposition was made in good faith due to the pending disqualification of Bartnik's counsel, it ruled that his failure to respond to written discovery requests constituted contempt. The court noted that Mackoway's responses were due by October 24, 2025, but he did not provide any justification for his delay.

The court stated, "Mackoway had a duty to seek court intervention prior to that date—such as by filing a request to stay discovery or to extend the time to answer—and that he failed to do so."

The court ordered Mackoway to provide complete responses to Bartnik's discovery requests and to pay her attorney fees incurred due to his failure to comply. Mackoway appealed the decision, arguing that he did not intentionally refuse to respond and believed his motion to disqualify Bartnik's counsel justified his actions.

Impact

This ruling reinforces the necessity for parties in legal disputes to adhere to discovery deadlines and procedures. It highlights that parties cannot simply ignore discovery obligations based on pending motions, as they must actively seek court intervention if they believe they cannot comply. The decision serves as a reminder of the court's authority to impose sanctions for non-compliance, which can include contempt findings and the requirement to pay the opposing party's legal fees.

The ruling may affect how parties approach discovery in future cases, particularly in family law and trust disputes. It emphasizes the importance of timely communication and compliance with legal procedures to avoid contempt findings.

What's Next

Mackoway can still appeal the decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court if he chooses. There is no indication in the court filing about any related cases pending.