and Ussery affidavits make use of extremely broad and unspecific language — such as “regularly” and “frequent” — and, despite claiming to have controlled the disputed property for years, do not outline precisely what specific activities they performed during that period. In the absence of any testimony or other evidence specifically describing how Warlick or Ussery controlled the disputed property to such an extent as to render Ridgway’s use non-exclusive, the finder of fact could find Warlick and Ussery not credible, and could infer that the control they exercised — if any — was minimal or only sporadic based on the skeletal descriptions in their affidavits. Cf. In re Marriage of Weissgerber, 2004 WI App 167, ¶ 36, 276 Wis. 2d 308, 686 N.W.2d 455 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, Golden Resorts also contends
holding that attorneys testimony was not relevant to any issues contained in the appellants pleadings and that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the attorneys testimony could not be gained from any other witness or source holding that statements plaintiff made to obtain disability insurance were binding admissions that he could not perform the essential functions of his job holding that the knowing use of false testimony to obtain a conviction violates due process holding the error harmless due to eyewitness corroboration of the victims testimony holding court could infer from lack of detail in testimony and lack of corroboration that party made not much if any effort to obtain a lawyer despite partys testimony that she made numerous calls and could not obtain one