Cookie therapy

By Judge Andrew P. Bissonnette, Dodge County Circuit Court

Judge Andrew P. Bissonnette

You never quite know what you are going to run into in small claims court. Recently I had a case whose origins traced back to the middle of last year. An 80-year-old widow owned two adjoining homes out in the country and was being foreclosed on. She had an unmarried couple as tenants in the other house, and they ended up reaching an agreement that they would buy all of the property from her, paying $10,000 less than what it was really worth, but giving her a life estate in her existing residence.

The case came into small claims court before me on the new owners’ request for eviction of the elderly lady. They indicated that, although their offer did contain the full agreement on the life estate, the deed which was given by the seller failed to reserve that life estate. The Court rather quickly found for the defense and reformed the deed to include the life estate language, since the buyers had already received the benefit of their bargain. We then confronted a number of issues which the original offer to purchase had left unresolved. Issues like where the lady was going to park, whether she could still use her garden, who was going to have access to the greenhouse, whether she would have to leash her dog, etc.

There were two hearings on this matter, the last one being on Friday, March 31. The woman owner appeared with her attorney, but her boyfriend did not attend that final hearing. The 80-year-old lady also attended with her attorney. Part way through the hearing, one of the issues was identified as to whether the 80-year-old would even be allowed to walk out in the yard. That sounded like a no-brainer to the Court, but the owner said that she had a 9-year-old daughter living with her and that the 9-year-old was afraid to go out into the yard or use the swing set because the 80-year-old lady might come out and be mean to her or try to hurt her.

I inquired as to what would have given the 9-year-old that impression. Ultimately, it sounded like the 9-year-old had heard mom’s boyfriend ranting and raving about the 80-year-old and formed some rather fearful impressions of the woman. I indicated that this was an untenable situation. We weren’t going to have a 9-year-old girl afraid to go out and use her own swing set out of fear of being harmed by the 80-year-old matriarch next door. Then and there I looked at the two ladies and ordered that within the next two weeks one of them was going to have the other over for tea and cookies. The 9-year-old was also going to be included. I then inquired who was going to do the baking. The 80-year-old volunteered to do that and to have the mother and daughter over to her home as long as the boyfriend was not required to attend. I agreed with that, indicating that tea and cookies isn’t usually a guy thing. I then expressed my intention that at the tea the 80-year-old get to know the daughter better and vice-versa.

I then recalled that Judge Storck had brought in a large tray of brownies for the courthouse staff earlier that day and that there were a fair number of them left that afternoon. I called down to our Clerk of Courts, Lynn Hron, and asked if she wouldn’t mind bringing up 8 or 10 brownies to my courtroom. After confirming with me that I was serious, she promptly brought up two dessert plates, each with six brownies on them. I took them from her and walked off the bench and placed a plate of brownies in front of each of the two lawyers. I then resumed my position at the bench and told them that at the end of this hearing we were going to practice this “tea and cookie thing”. I also indicated that nobody was to touch any of the brownies until we had resolved every issue in the case.

Over the next 15 minutes we finished resolving all of the issues, and at least one of the attorneys commented that the brownies were looking pretty good, and he was therefore agreeable to opposing counsel’s last proposal. We ended up concluding the hearing 10 or 15 minutes ahead of schedule. There were a few people gathered in the back of the courtroom for the next hearing, and I invited them to come up to share in the brownies. I took a minute or two to organize my files and to gather my things in preparation of leaving the bench for a 10-minute recess. As I left the courtroom, however, I glanced over my shoulder long enough to see the two ladies and their attorneys all gathered rather closely together, each with an upturned hand with a napkin lying on it and a brownie in the other hand, and with them eating and chatting. I think I even glimpsed a couple of smiles. As I left the courtroom, I thought to myself, “Yes! Cookie therapy works again.”

P.S. Earlier that day I was sitting with Judge Storck at lunch. I was the first one to dig into his brownies and expressed how good they were. I inquired if his wife, Paula, had made them the night before. Judge Storck proudly announced that he had actually made them himself, although from a mix. I then commented that I particularly liked the brownies because they had chocolate chips in them. Judge Storck then turned to me with a little surprise and said, “Is that what they are? Last night I kept seeing these little lumps in the batter and I kept stirring and stirring, but I just could never quite get them all out. I wondered what I had done wrong.”

Back to top

Back to The Third Branch current issue