Bruns v. Muniz

Citation97 Wis.2d 742,295 N.W.2d 11
Decision Date02 June 1980
Docket NumberNo. 80-368,80-368
CourtCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin
PartiesDonald B. BRUNS, General Guardian of Ernest Edwin Bruns, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ivette M. MUNIZ and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants-Respondents, James A. Loduha, Defendant.

Scott G. Pernitz and Winner, McCallum, Hendee & Wixson, Madison, for plaintiff-appellant.

Claude J. Covelli and Boardman, Suhr, Curry & Field, Madison, for defendants-respondents.

Before GARTZKE, P. J., and BABLITCH and DYKMAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The respondents Muniz and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company move to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the appeal was not timely taken. According to the respondents, the appellant had 45 days after January 2, 1980, the date of entry of judgment, to file his appeal, and he failed to do so. The notice of appeal was filed in the trial court on February 22, 1980.

The appellant contends that the actual date of entry of judgment was either December 29 or 31, 1979, and thus the notice of entry of judgment served January 22, 1980, was not served within 21 days of the date of entry of judgment as required by sec. 806.06(5), Stats. If the notice of entry of judgment is not timely filed the appellant would have had 90 days to appeal under sec. 808.04(1), Stats. In addition the appellant contends that there is no proof in the record that the notice of entry of judgment was given within 21 days of entry of judgment as required by sec. 806.06(5), and also that three days should be subtracted from the time for serving the notice of entry of judgment, pursuant to sec. 801.15(5), Stats., when a notice of entry of judgment is served by mail.

We conclude that the notice of appeal was filed late and that the appeal must be dismissed.

"A judgment is entered when it is filed in the office of the clerk of court." Sec. 806.06(1)(b), Stats. The appellant contends that the judgment was actually filed when it was received by Judge Bardwell on December 29, 1979, citing sec. 801.14(5), Stats., which allows filing with a judge. However, sec. 801.14(5) provides:

The filing of pleadings and other papers with the court as required by these statutes shall be made by filing them with the clerk of court, except that the judge may permit the papers to be filed with the judge, in which event the judge shall note thereon the filing date and forthwith transmit them to the office of the clerk. (Emphasis added.)

There is nothing in the record to indicate that Judge Bardwell permitted he judgment to be filed in his office, and the judgment does not indicate that it was filed in Judge Bardwell's office on December 29. We conclude that the judgment was not filed December 29.

The appellant next contends that the actual date of filing the judgment was December 31, 1980, when the judgment was delivered to the clerk of court's office by Judge Bardwell's clerk. The appellant relies upon the cases of Boston Old Colony Ins. v. Int'l. Rectifier Corp., 91 Wis.2d 813, 284 N.W.2d 93 (1979), and First Wis. Nat. Bank of Madison v. Nicholaou, 87 Wis.2d 360, 274 N.W.2d 704 (1979), for the proposition that the date of delivery, not the date the document is stamped "filed," is controlling. The affidavit of Judge Bardwell's clerk states that she received an order for judgment signed by Judge Bardwell on December 31, 1979, together with the unsigned judgment and correspondence from the appellant's attorney. She time-stamped the order for judgment and delivered all three documents to the clerk's office on December 31. On January 2, 1980, the deputy clerk signed the judgment and time-stamped it.

In Boston, 91 Wis.2d 813, 284 N.W.2d 93, and Nicholaou, 87 Wis.2d 360, 274 N.W.2d 704, the supreme court discussed the filings of notices of appeal and petitions for review in the clerk's office of this court and the supreme court. Those cases are distinguishable because the filing of a notice of appeal or petition for review is not comparable to the filing of an unsigned judgment. A judgment is not effective until it is rendered. "A judgment is rendered by the court when it is signed by the judge or by the clerk at the judge's written direction." Sec. 806.06(1)(a), Stats. It is undisputed that the judgment was signed by the deputy clerk on January 2, 1980, pursuant to Judge Bardwell's written order for judgment. The judgment could not be considered "filed," and therefore "entered" pursuant to sec. 806.06(1)(b), until it had been rendered. Netherton v. Frank Holton & Co., 189 Wis. 461, 469, 205 N.W. 388 (1926). The appellant's contention that the unsigned judgment was filed when it was delivered to the clerk's office on December 31, 1980, is without merit. We deem it immaterial that the correspondence from the appellant's attorney requested the court to not enter judgment until costs were taxed.

The next argument advanced by the appellant is that there is nothing in the record to prove that notice of entry of the judgment was given within 21 days of entry of judgment as required by sec. 806.06(5), Stats. The appellant contends that notice of entry of judgment must be "given," rather than served, and that there must be proof that it was "given." There is no contention by the appellant that he or his attorney did not receive the notice of entry of judgment and he does not inform the court when it was received.

An affidavit by the respondents' attorney attached to the motion to dismiss states that a copy of the notice of entry of judgment was mailed to appellant's attorney on January 22, 1980. The docket entries show that the notice of entry of judgment was filed with the clerk of court on January 23, 1980. Service by mail is complete upon mailing. Sec. 801.14(2), Stats.; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Savich v. Columbia Cnty. Bd. of Adjustments
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • May 11, 2023
    ... ... and filing are of course acts that can and sometimes do occur ... for a single document on separate days. See Bruns v ... Muniz , 97 Wis.2d 742, 743-45, 295 N.W.2d 11 (Ct. App ... 1980) (distinguishing the acts of signing, filing, rendering, ... ...
  • Mullen v. Braatz, 93-2076
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • October 26, 1993
    ...of entry of judgment was "given" when it was mailed, we concluded that the inquiry did not end there. See Bruns v. Muniz, 97 Wis.2d 742, 746, 295 N.W.2d 11, 13-14 (Ct.App.1980). 1 Because the affidavits of the plaintiff's attorney and his secretary unequivocally stated that no notice was re......
  • Wisconsin State Emp. Union v. Henderson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • February 23, 1982
    ...Stats., is inapplicable to the filing of a notice of appeal under secs. 808.03(1) and 808.04(1), Stats. 1 Bruns v. Muniz, 97 Wis.2d 742, 746, 295 N.W.2d 11, 14 (Ct.App.1980); Fredrick v. City of Janesville, 91 Wis.2d 572, 577-78, 283 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Ct.App.1979), reversed on other grounds,......
  • Soquet v. Soquet, 83-849
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • March 27, 1984
    ...of the words "given" and "served" as used in this statute is shown in the method by which each is accomplished. In Bruns v. Muniz, 97 Wis.2d 742, 295 N.W.2d 11 (Ct.App.1980), the court of appeals held that notice of entry is "given" when mailed. Similarly, section 801.14(2), Stats., stated:......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT