Baird Contracting, Inc. v. Mid Wisconsin Bank of Medford, 94-1684-FT
| Decision Date | 16 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1684-FT,94-1684-FT |
| Citation | 189 Wis.2d 321,525 N.W.2d 276 |
| Parties | BAIRD CONTRACTING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MID WISCONSIN BANK OF MEDFORD, Garnishee-Defendant-Respondent, Central Sand & Gravel, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of James J. Skyberg of Kaminski, Pozorski & Greig of Manitowoc.
On behalf of the garnishee-defendant-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of William A. Grunewald of Nikolay, Jensen, Scott, Gamoke & Grunewald, S.C. of Medford.
Before ANDERSON, P.J., and BROWN and SNYDER, JJ.
Baird Contracting, Inc. has appealed from an order dismissing its garnishment action against the respondent, Mid Wisconsin Bank of Medford.
Default judgment initially was entered in favor of Baird and against the bank when the bank failed to file a timely answer to a garnishee summons and complaint served upon Lori Mahl, a bookkeeping supervisor for the bank. The bank moved to vacate the default judgment and the trial court granted the motion, determining that the bank's failure to file a timely answer constituted excusable neglect. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it reopened the default judgment based on excusable neglect. We hold that the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion; therefore, we affirm the order of the trial court.
A motion to vacate a default judgment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and this court will not disturb the trial court's determination absent an erroneous exercise of that discretion. Maier Constr., Inc. v. Ryan, 81 Wis.2d 463, 472, 260 N.W.2d 700, 704 (1978). 1 A trial court properly exercises its discretion when it examines the relevant facts, applies the proper standard of law and, using a demonstrated rational process, reaches a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach. Gerth v. American Star Ins. Co., 166 Wis.2d 1000, 1006-07, 480 N.W.2d 836, 839 (Ct.App.1992).
A defendant may obtain relief from a default judgment by showing excusable neglect and a meritorious defense to the action. Maier Constr., 81 Wis.2d at 472, 260 N.W.2d at 703. Excusable neglect is that neglect which might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. Id. at 473, 260 N.W.2d at 704.
In considering a motion to vacate a default judgment, the trial court is required to bear three factors in mind: (1) that the statute relating to the vacation of default judgments is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed; (2) that the general policy of the law favors giving litigants their day in court with an opportunity to try the issues; and (3) that default judgments are regarded with disfavor in the eyes of the law. Id. at 472, 260 N.W.2d at 704. The prompt action of the defendant in seeking relief from the judgment is also a factor to be considered. Id.
In granting the bank's motion, the trial court noted that the bank moved for relief on December 6, 1993, within less than three weeks of the date the bank learned that default judgment had been entered against it on November 9, 1993. The trial court also found that service of the summons and complaint was originally made on the bank on October 11, 1993 by service on Mahl, a bookkeeping supervisor. The trial court found that while Mahl was a bank supervisor, she did not have the training an attorney would have in legal matters. It also relied on information in Mahl's affidavit indicating that the bookkeeping department was "swamped" with work at the time service was made and was short staffed because of office turnover.
Mahl's affidavit also indicated that construction activities were ongoing in her building at the time the summons and complaint were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Royal Credit Union v. Schneider
...the failure to timely answer a complaint. To the contrary, Deutsche Bank contends that, under Baird Contracting, Inc. v. Mid Wisconsin Bank of Medford, 189 Wis.2d 321, 525 N.W.2d 276 (Ct.App.1994), service of a summons and complaint upon a non-attorney employee of a bank automatically makes......
-
State v. G.K.
...disturb the trial court's determination absent an erroneous exercise of that discretion. See Baird Contracting v. Mid Wisconsin Bank, 189 Wis.2d 321, 324, 525 N.W.2d 276, 277 (Ct. App. 1994). A trial court properly exercises its discretion when it examines the relevant facts, applies the pr......
-
Miro Tool & Mfg., Inc. v. Midland Machinery, Inc.
...not disturb the trial court's determination absent an erroneous exercise of that discretion. Baird Contracting, Inc. v. Mid Wis. Bank, 189 Wis.2d 321, 324, 525 N.W.2d 276, 277 (Ct.App.1994). Here, however, the controlling question is one of statutory construction: whether a trial court may ......
-
Chanlynn v. Chancery Restaurant, 95-1014
...disturb the trial court's determination absent an erroneous exercise of that discretion. See Baird Contracting, Inc. v. Mid Wisconsin Bank, 189 Wis.2d 321, 324, 525 N.W.2d 276, 277 (Ct.App.1994). A trial court properly exercises its discretion when it examines the relevant facts, applies th......