1979) (internal quotation marks omitted). As the Wisconsin Supreme Court has explained, section 805.04, like its counterpart in the federal rules, “allows the plaintiff to withdraw his action from the court without prejudice to future litigation.” Dunn v. Instead, the bank asked the circuit court to dismiss the foreclosure case it had initiated.Īn order of dismissal ends a case, absent some provision of that order to the contrary. It could, for example, have asked the circuit court to pause the foreclosure litigation until the bankruptcy proceedings were complete. The bank had other options if it anticipated wanting to continue prosecuting the foreclosure. It was First National that proposed dismissing the foreclosure action previously. But neither section 805.04 nor any other Rule provides for a party that voluntarily dismissed a suit to resume the same suit later as if without interruption. 2d 937, 655 N.W.2d 525 (reviewing circuit court application of rule governing dismissals).Īdmittedly, the circuit court acted to “secure … speedy, and inexpensive determination” of the bank’s foreclosure suit. Moreover, “hether a statute applies to the undisputed facts is a question of law that review de novo.” Bank One Wis. Because the Rules are contained in the Wisconsin Statutes, their interpretation “presents a question of statutory interpretation that review de novo.” State v. The degree to which the court of appeals deferred to the circuit court’s discretion is surprising. Though the court of appeals gave no indication that First National provided the circuit court any authority justifying the relief the bank’s motion sought, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s reasoning that granting the motion to reopen was the least expensive option and avoided unnecessary delay. The court of appeals brushed aside the Hansons’ argument that the circuit court’s actions were procedurally impermissible, stating that although First National’s “written motion was initially deficient” for failing to provide any argument for the relief it sought, that failing became “irrelevant” once the trial court “held a hearing on the motion.” Hanson, No. Over the Hansons’ objection, the circuit court granted the motion and resumed the previously dismissed foreclosure action at the point where the parties had left off prior to dismissal. First National filed a motion in the circuit court, asking to reopen the foreclosure suit. §805.04 (governing dismissals).Once the bankruptcy proceedings ended, First National sought to continue with the foreclosure. After First National learned of the Hansons’ bankruptcy petition, the bank asked the circuit court to dismiss the foreclosure action “without prejudice.” See Wis. The bankruptcy proceeding necessarily stalled any other civil proceedings, including the foreclosure action, against the Hansons. While the foreclosure action was pending, the Hansons petitioned for personal bankruptcy. In this case, First National Bank of America filed a foreclosure action against David and Diana Hanson in circuit court. While judges should construe the Rules to “secure just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” in litigation, the Rules apply to and govern procedure and practice in all civil proceedings. A recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals seems to suggest that circuit courts have broad latitude in complying with the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |