Jean Parker’s legal battle against Scott Huntress reached a critical juncture as the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision, denying her claims and awarding damages to Huntress. On January 27, 2026, Jean Parker filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals for the State of Wisconsin against Scott Huntress, following a judgment by the Pierce County Circuit Court.
The case revolves around allegations of civil theft, conversion, unjust enrichment, and unlawful eviction. The tumultuous relationship between Parker and Huntress ended in early 2022, leading to a legal confrontation over personal belongings and property rights. Parker accused Huntress of wrongfully retaining her possessions after their breakup. She claimed that after selling her home and moving into properties owned by Huntress during their relationship, she was unlawfully prevented from retrieving her belongings when Huntress changed the locks on one of his properties in June 2022.
Huntress countered with his own claims of civil theft/conversion and property damage against Parker. The court found that while both parties alleged possession of each other’s property without evidence, it was established that Parker retained eleven “summer items” belonging to Huntress worth $13,599.41. Additionally, she damaged a pair of headphones valued at $199.99.
Despite these findings against her, Parker challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting the damages awarded to Huntress on appeal. She argued that it was unjust for the court to dismiss all her claims and contended that some claims were not adequately addressed by the circuit court. Moreover, she invoked the Double Jeopardy Clause concerning damages for the headphones—a claim dismissed as irrelevant in civil proceedings.
On cross-appeal, Huntress sought exemplary damages and attorney fees totaling $54,646.96 under Wisconsin Statute § 895.446(3)(b) and (c), which allows recovery for intentional property damage or loss. However, the circuit court denied this request due to multiple intertwined claims between the parties beyond just property loss—deeming such costs not “reasonably incurred.” Furthermore, it exercised discretion in refusing exemplary damages as there was no evidence Parker profited from or attached sentimental value to retained items.
Ultimately affirming both judgment and order without awarding costs to either party were Judges Stark P.J., Hruz J., Gill J., alongside Circuit Judge Elizabeth L Rohl presiding over initial proceedings under Case ID No:2023AP2151/2022CV118.
Source: 2023AP2151_Parker_v_Huntress_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
