Marshall-Wisconsin Co., Inc. v. Juneau Square Corp., MARSHALL-WISCONSIN
| Decision Date | 11 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 83-491,83-1632,MARSHALL-WISCONSIN,s. 83-491 |
| Citation | 139 Wis.2d 112,406 N.W.2d 764 |
| Parties | COMPANY, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUNEAU SQUARE CORPORATION, a Wisconsin corporation; Gertrude Berggren, a limited partner of Marshall-East, a limited partnership; Marshall-East, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; Harold C. Smith, III, as Executor of the Estate of Harold C. Smith, Jr., and the Estate of Mildred B. Smith, Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners, William T. Collings; John J. Deutsch; Donald E. Stevens; Eugene N. Grotenhuis; W. George Bowring; Reinke & Schomann, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; McDonald, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; City of Milwaukee, a municipal corporation; Marshall-Michigan Co., Inc.; and unknown Heirs or Devisees of Charles Cochrane, Edward Cochrane, and John A. Cochrane, Defendants.COMPANY, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUNEAU SQUARE CORPORATION, a Wisconsin corporation; Tennie M. Conway, an individual; Harold C. Smith, III, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Harold C. Smith, Jr. and the Estate of Mildred B. Smith, Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners, William T. Collings; John J. Deutsch; Donald E. Stevens; Eugene N. Grotenhuis; W. George Bowring; Reinke & Schomann, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; McDonald, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; City of Milwaukee, a municipal corporation; and Marshall-Michigan Co., Inc., Defendants.COMPANY, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUNEAU SQUARE CORPORATION, a Wisconsin corporation, Gertrude H. Berggren; Estate of Harold C. Smith, Jr., and Estate of Mildred B. Smith, Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners, William T. Collings; John H. Deutsch; Donald E. Stevens; Eugene N. Grotenhuis; W. George Bowring; Reinke & Schomann, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, and Marshall-East, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, Defendants. , and 85-0830. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
George P. Kersten, Milwaukee, argued, for defendants-appellants-petitioners; Ann L. Muchin and Kersten & McKinnon, Milwaukee, on brief.
James O. Huber and Mark F. Foley, Milwaukee, argued, for plaintiff-respondent; Nancy J. Kopp, Foley & Lardner, Milwaukee, on brief.
This is a review of a decision of the court of appeals 1 which affirmed in part and reversed in part three judgments of foreclosure by the circuit courts of Milwaukee county, Circuit Judges Marvin C. Holz, Hugh R. O'Connell, and Harold B. Jackson, Jr., upon the mortgagees of three separate parcels of property. The three foreclosure judgments were consolidated on appeal to the court of appeals. Each of the foreclosure actions was brought by Marshall-Wisconsin Company, Inc. (Marshall-Wisconsin), respondent here, against Juneau Square Corporation (Juneau Square) and others, the owners of the three parcels and petitioners here. There was a substantial time gap--in one of the cases almost 13 years--between the date that the individual foreclosure actions were commenced and the date upon which judgments were entered. The reason for the delays in prosecution of the foreclosure actions is sharply in dispute. The delays are the basis of
petitioners' claim that Wisconsin's failure to prosecute statute, Section 805.03, Stats., 2 should now provide the foundation for [139 Wis.2d 117] dismissal, with prejudice, of each of the foreclosure actions. We believe that the facts of this case provide ample justification for dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Section 805.03.
This case is the culmination of nearly fifteen years of protracted litigation dealing with the financial collapse of certain business ventures initiated by Juneau Square. In 1960, Juneau Square began its involvement in what was to be an ambitious office building project in the heart of the business district of downtown Milwaukee. Two office buildings, Juneau Square North and Juneau Square South, were completed by the petitioners in the 1960's. However, by early 1969, Juneau Square was in default on its mortgages on these buildings, due to a failure to pay $245,000 in property taxes. The parties refer to these buildings as the "existing project." 3 Thereafter, the existing project became the subject of two foreclosure actions, one brought by Aetna Life Insurance Company on a first mortgage in November, 1969, and one brought by Marshall-Michigan Company, Inc. on a second mortgage shortly thereafter. Marshall-Michigan entered its foreclosure judgment on January 3, 1972, and Aetna did the same on the following day. The next month, Marshall-Michigan purchased the existing project for a nominal sum at a sheriff's sale; it then sold its interest in the project to Marshall-Wisconsin, a First Wisconsin Corporation subsidiary.
There are three parcels of land which are the subject of this lawsuit. The parcels, now vacant, are located directly adjacent to the Juneau Square North project and were to be the site of a high-rise office tower, to be called Juneau Square East and to be built by petitioners. The parties refer to the properties as the "Menos parcel," the "Vartanian parcel," and the "Marshall Street parcel." In May, 1972, Marshall-Wisconsin purchased the notes and mortgages on the Menos parcel; in March, 1973, it purchased the notes and second mortgage on the Vartanian parcel and the notes and mortgage on the Marshall Street parcel; and in May, 1973, it purchased the notes and first mortgage on the Vartanian parcel. The notes and mortgages were purchased from various individuals who were financing the Juneau Square high-rise office project.
Marshall-Wisconsin sued to foreclose on the Menos parcel on July 25, 1972, and commenced foreclosure actions on the Vartanian and Marshall Street properties on August 31, 1973. 4 Little activity occurred in the Menos foreclosure action until mid-year, 1981, and in the remaining actions until early 1982. Trials were scheduled in each of the cases, to be held in the summer and fall of 1982. Foreclosure judgments were finally entered as follows: In the Marshall Street action, on January 17, 1983 (Judge Holz); in the Vartanian action, on July 22, 1983 (Judge O'Connell); and in the Menos action, on April 16, 1985 (Judge Jackson).
The delay in prosecution of each of the foreclosure actions was arguably due to the fact that there were two related cases being prosecuted during the same time period.
In the fall of 1972, Juneau Square commenced an action in federal court against Marshall-Wisconsin and other First Wisconsin defendants. 5 Juneau Square initially prevailed in a jury trial at the district court level, but the court ordered a new trial which resulted in a verdict for the defendants. Prior to resolution of the new trial, Juneau Square commenced another action, this one in state court, which alleged various business tort claims. 6 We will summarize the pertinent facts in each of these actions, as a review of those facts will aid the understanding of the issues raised by the parties here
THE FEDERAL ACTION
In the federal action, commenced on September 22, 1972, Juneau Square alleged that the defendants, among them the First Wisconsin Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Marshall-Wisconsin and the First Wisconsin National Bank of Milwaukee (Juneau Square's personal bank); Aetna Life Insurance Company; and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, conspired to restrain trade by a variety of tortious and fraudulent acts calculated to halt Juneau Square's office building project. The facts are set out in great detail in the two federal decisions, see, n. 5, supra, but in brief, Juneau Square advanced claims against the defendants for conspiring to restrain trade with respect to Juneau Square's attempts to move forward with the Juneau Square East phase of its office building project and with respect to Juneau Square's attempts to obtain financing for the development of the office building project. Juneau Square alleged antitrust violations of various sections of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. Sections 15 and 18 (1970), and of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. Sections 1 and 2 (1970).
Juneau Square alleged that First Wisconsin Corporation and the other defendants, including Marshall-Wisconsin, engaged in deceptive and fraudulent conduct aimed at putting Juneau Square out of business. According to Juneau Square, First Wisconsin's eventual acquisition of Juneau Square's existing commercial projects was motivated by its desire to eliminate Juneau Square as a competitor in the development of the downtown commercial building market, which it succeeded in doing. First Wisconsin had plans to build a high-rise office building on a parcel of land located directly adjacent to the proposed site of the Juneau Square East office building project. First Wisconsin successfully carried out those plans, while the Juneau Square East site remains vacant. Juneau Square contended that its repeated attempts to obtain financing for completion of the Juneau Square East project were consistently frustrated; although negotiations with lenders always began smoothly, they were nevertheless abruptly broken off each time, without an explanation that Juneau Square believed to be adequate. Juneau Square alleged that First Wisconsin representatives interfered with these negotiations by urging the lenders not to extend the financing to Juneau Square, which was necessary to enable it to embark on the construction of the office building project and which would help it remain financially viable with respect to the existing project. Other conspiratorial conduct also allegedly occurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Voss v. City of Middleton
...440 N.W.2d 777 (1989). The sole purpose of this review is to ascertain the intent of the legislature. Marshall-Wis. v. Juneau Square Corp., 139 Wis.2d 112, 133, 406 N.W.2d 764 (1987). In ascertaining that intent, the first resort is to the language of the statute itself. Id. If it clearly a......
-
Return of Property in State v. Jones, 97-33606
...the statutory language is ambiguous may we resort to outside sources to aid statutory construction. Marshall-Wisconsin Co. v. Juneau Square Corp., 139 Wis.2d 112, 133, 406 N.W.2d 764 (1987). ¶38 We find no ambiguity in the legislature's provision that contraband includes, among other things......
-
Monson v. Madison Family Institute
...he or she can demonstrate "a clear and justifiable excuse" for the delay. Id. at 733, 279 N.W.2d at 245; Marshall-Wis. v. Juneau Square, 139 Wis.2d 112, 139, 406 N.W.2d 764, 773 (1987). Thus, the egregious or bad faith standard is robbed of any substance, except as is bestowed by the grace ......
-
SJ Props. Suites v. Specialty Fin. Grp., LLC
...intent of the legislature. Voss v. Middleton, 162 Wis.2d 737, 470 N.W.2d 625, 629 (Wis.1991) (citing Marshall–Wis. Co. v. Juneau Square Corp., 139 Wis.2d 112, 406 N.W.2d 764, 772 (Wis.1987)). To that end, under Wisconsin law, statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute.......