## Facts

- Mary Gasparac lived with her daughter, Mae Schunk, from about 1987 through 1996.
- Gasparac executed a will naming Schunk as personal representative and granted Schunk a durable power of attorney, making Schunk Gasparac’s attorney-in-fact for financial matters.
- Gasparac died in 1997.
- After Gasparac’s death, Schunk submitted an estate inventory reporting a net estate value of roughly $18,000.
- Gasparac’s other children, Katherine Ratkovich and Jack Gasparac, challenged Schunk’s conduct in the probate proceeding, alleging Schunk had transferred Gasparac’s assets to herself during Gasparac’s lifetime.
- Following investigation, the probate court found Schunk received about $181,000 from Gasparac between August 1987 and December 1996 and that Schunk had provided Gasparac about nine years of room and board.
- Schunk resigned as personal representative.
- In October 2000, the Estate of Mary Gasparac sued Schunk, alleging (1) conversion of approximately $181,000 and (2) breach of fiduciary duty based on Schunk’s transfers to herself while acting as attorney-in-fact.
- Schunk moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) the fiduciary-duty claim was time-barred, (2) any conversion claim before October 1994 was time-barred under the six-year period for conversion, and (3) Gasparac, who was mentally competent, approved and ratified Schunk’s use of the funds.
- Schunk submitted affidavits from her husband, William Schunk, and Gasparac’s health aide, Mary Preston, stating Gasparac repeatedly expressed approval of Schunk’s use of Gasparac’s assets.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to Schunk, and the estate appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the estate’s breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations given that the challenged transfers occurred during Gasparac’s lifetime and the complaint was filed in October 2000.
2. Whether the estate’s conversion claim was time-barred as to transfers occurring more than six years before suit (i.e., before October 1994) under Wisconsin’s limitations period for conversion.
3. Whether, for any claims not barred by limitations, the undisputed evidence showed Gasparac—while mentally competent—authorized or ratified Schunk’s use of the funds, defeating conversion and fiduciary-duty liability on summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Schunk.
- The court held the estate’s breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim was untimely under the governing limitations period because the challenged conduct occurred years earlier during Gasparac’s life and the estate could not assert a claim that was already stale.
- The court held the six-year statute of limitations for conversion barred any conversion claim for transfers occurring before October 1994.
- As to any remaining, non-time-barred allegations, the court concluded the record showed Gasparac was mentally competent and repeatedly approved Schunk’s use of the assets, which constituted authorization or ratification that defeated the estate’s theories as a matter of law.
- Because no genuine issue of material fact existed on timeliness and ratification, Schunk was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- An estate generally stands in the decedent’s position for claims based on lifetime transactions; it cannot revive claims that were already barred during the decedent’s life.
- Conversion in Wisconsin is subject to a six-year statute of limitations (Wis. Stat. § 893.51), which bars recovery for transfers outside that period when suit is filed.
- A breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim is subject to a statute of limitations that runs from accrual of the claim; when the principal is competent and aware (or should be aware) of the agent’s conduct, the time to sue begins during the principal’s lifetime.
- A competent principal may authorize or later ratify an agent’s use of the principal’s funds; ratification can defeat later claims that the transactions were wrongful, including claims framed as conversion or fiduciary breach.
- Summary judgment is proper when the evidence, viewed in the nonmoving party’s favor, still leaves no triable dispute on an element such as timeliness or lack of consent.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of the estate’s suit because the fiduciary-duty claim and part of the conversion claim were filed too late, and the remaining allegations failed on the merits where the undisputed evidence showed the mentally competent decedent repeatedly approved and thereby ratified the daughter/attorney-in-fact’s use of the funds.


In re Estate of Gasparac, 259 Wis. 2d 481, 655 N.W.2d 546 (2002)