Capitol Fixture and Woodworking Group v. Woodma Distributors, Inc., 88-0927

• Decision Date: 18 October 1988
• Docket Number: No. 88-0927,88-0927
• Citation: 147 Wis.2d 157,432 N.W.2d 647
• Parties: CAPITOL FIXTURE AND WOODWORKING GROUP, a Division of the Capitol Companies, Inc., an Illinois corp., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WOODMA DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Page 647

432 N.W.2d 647

147 Wis.2d 157

CAPITOL FIXTURE AND WOODWORKING GROUP, a Division of the Capitol Companies, Inc., an Illinois corp. Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WOODMA DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 88-0927.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Submitted on Briefs Aug. 19, 1988.

Opinion Released Oct. 18, 1988.

Opinion Filed Oct. 18, 1988.

David D. Brown, Green Bay, on brief, for defendant-appellant.

William P. Kopish of Kopish, Miron, Boyle, Topel & Miron, S.C., Marinette, on brief, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before CANE, P.J., and LaROCQUE and MYSE, JJ.

CANE, Presiding Judge.

Woodma Distributors, Inc., appeals an order denying its motion to vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction and an order reinstating the default judgment. The trial court granted a default judgment against Woodma in favor of Capitol Fixture and Woodworking Group.

Woodma sells woodmaking machinery with its principal place of business in Center Moriches, New York. In 1985, Woodma sold a grooving machine to Capitol Fixture, a division of an Illinois corporation, located in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The machine was shipped to and installed at a Capitol Fixture manufacturing plant located in Peshtigo, Wisconsin. The issue is whether Woodma's isolated sale to Capitol Fixture and the machine's subsequent delivery and installation confer jurisdiction in this state under sec. 801.05(5)(e), Stats. Because we conclude that Woodma had sufficient minimum contacts with Wisconsin, we affirm the trial court's order.

The facts are undisputed. Woodma, a New York corporation, entered into a contract to sell a grooving machine (groover) to Capitol Fixture for $32,864. The purchase price included the delivery and installation of the groover at the Capitol Fixture plant in Peshtigo, Wisconsin. The groover was shipped to Peshtigo, where a Woodma representative installed the unit.

Woodma contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to sec. 801.05(1)(d), which confers personal jurisdiction upon the court only if the person:

Is engaged in substantial and not isolated activities within this state, whether such activities are wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise.

It argues that the groover's sale and installation is not substantial so as to confer personal jurisdiction in Wisconsin over the company. To support its contention, Woodma argues that it is not licensed to do business in Wisconsin, does not have an office or mailing address in Wisconsin, and does not advertise in the state. It is undisputed that the negotiations and contract formation took place outside Wisconsin and that Woodma's sole contact with this state was the delivery and installation of the groover.

Capitol Fixture, on the other hand, argues that the controlling statute which confers jurisdiction on the trial court is sec. 801.05(5)(e), ¹ which confers jurisdiction on any action relating to goods, documents or title or other things of value actually received by a buyer in Wisconsin from a seller.

Jurisdiction questions are questions of law, and a reviewing court need not defer to the trial court's decision. See Davanis v. Davanis, 132 Wis.2d 318, 331, 392 N.W.2d 108, 113 (Ct.App.1986). We review this de novo. Id.

When determining whether personal jurisdiction exists over Woodma in Wisconsin, we must make two inquiries. First, whether Woodma's contacts with Capitol Fixture were sufficient to subject it to jurisdiction in Wisconsin under this state's "long-arm" statute, sec. 801.05(5)(e). Second, if so, would such application of this statute to Woodma violate due process requirements.

Section 801.05 codifies the minimum contacts jurisdictional test to ensure that a nonresident's due process rights are not violated, as required by International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316-17, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158-59, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). The due process clause of the fourteenth amendment requires a nonresident defendant to have certain minimum contacts with a forum state before being sued in the forum. Id. at 316-17, 66 S.Ct. at 158-59. Therefore, compliance with the statute and its subsections creates a rebuttable presumption that due process has been satisfied and that a court may confer personal jurisdiction over the nonresident party. Zerbel v. H.L. Federman & Co., 48 Wis.2d 54, 70, 179 N.W.2d 872, 881 (1970), appeal dismissed, 402 U.S. 902, 91 S.Ct. 1379, 28 L.Ed.2d 643 (1971).

The applicable subsection in this case, sec. 801.05(5)(e), requires that the resident plaintiff receive goods of value from the nonresident defendant before personal jurisdiction is acquired. Thus, in this instance, we must determine whether the sale, delivery, and installation of the groover constitutes the receipt of valued goods by Capitol Fixture, pursuant to sec. 801.05(5)(e) and whether there were sufficient contacts to subject Woodma to Wisconsin jurisdiction under the long-arm statute. We answer this affirmatively and support this conclusion by citing persuasive comments prepared by the statute's reporter.

The reporter, Professor Foster, writes that sufficient minimum contacts exist under sec. 801.05(5) if the following three jurisdictional facts are present:

(i) a claim arising out of a bargaining arrangement made with the defendant by or on behalf of the plaintiff;

(ii) a promise or other act of the defendant, made or performed anywhere, which evidences the bargaining arrangement sued upon; and

(iii) a showing that the arrangement itself involves or contemplates some substantial connection with the state.

Revision Notes, subsec. (5), Wis.Stat.Ann. sec. 801.05 (West 1977). These three factors have been met. First, there was a contract between Capitol Fixture and a New York defendant for the sale of machinery. Second, the machinery was delivered to Wisconsin pursuant to the parties' contract. Third, Woodma sent a technician to Wisconsin to install the machine pursuant to the contract terms. The presence of these three factors contemplated by sec. 801.05(5)(e) raises a presumption of compliance with the minimum due...