White Hen Pantry v. Buttke
| Decision Date | 02 February 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1532,79-1532 |
| Citation | 100 Wis.2d 169,301 N.W.2d 216 |
| Parties | WHITE HEN PANTRY, a division of Jewel Companies, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerald BUTTKE and Buttke Enterprises, Inc., Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Alan H. Deutch (argued), Lawrence P. Kahn and Deutch & Hansher, S. C., Milwaukee, on brief, for defendants-respondents-petitioners.
Andrew O. Riteris (argued), Charles P. Graupner and Michael, Best & Friedrich, Milwaukee, on brief, for plaintiff-appellant.
This is a review of a decision of the court of appeals, White Hen Pantry v. Buttke, 98 Wis.2d 119, 295 N.W.2d 763 (1980), which reversed an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county, John E. McCormick, Circuit Judge. The sole issue on review is whether a grantor terminating a dealership for nonpayment of sums due under the dealership must provide the dealer 90 days' prior written notice of termination, pursuant to sec. 135.04, Stats.1977. White Hen Pantry, the grantor, contends that if sums due under the dealership are not paid within 10 days of notice of nonpayment, the dealership is terminated at the end of the 10-day period. Gerald Buttke, the dealer, claims that notwithstanding the fact that the dealer fails to pay the sums claimed due within the 10-day period after notice of nonpayment of sums due, termination of the dealership is not effective until the expiration of 90 days after notice.
The issue is before us following the granting of Buttke's petition for review. We reverse the court of appeals and conclude that sec. 135.04, Stats.1977, requires that 90-days' prior written notice of termination be given when termination is for nonpayment of sums due under the dealership.
The dealership involved in the instant case began operating in November, 1974, after White Hen Pantry, a division of Jewel Companies, Inc., and a franchisor of convenience retail grocery stores, entered into a written franchise agreement with Gerald Buttke 1 for the operation of a White Hen Pantry convenience grocery store. Under the terms of the agreement Buttke sublet the premises occupied by the store from White Hen Pantry.
On May 22, 1979, White Hen Pantry advised Buttke by letter that there were sums due and owing under the franchise agreement and that unless $15,306.25, the amount claimed due, was paid by May 29, 1979, White Hen Pantry would "proceed to serve upon you a 10 day notice for termination of your franchise in accordance with the provisions of chapter 135 of the Wisconsin Statutes." Buttke made no payment, and by letter dated May 30, 1979, White Hen Pantry advised Buttke as follows: The alleged debt remained unpaid.
On June 11, 1979, White Hen Pantry commenced an eviction action in Milwaukee County Circuit Court Small Claims Division. The complaint alleged that the franchise had been terminated by Buttke's failure to pay sums due and owing within ten days after receipt of the notice; that White Hen was entitled to possession of the premises pursuant to the franchise agreement which required the dealer to surrender possession to the grantor on termination of the dealership; and that Buttke owed White Hen Pantry a sum in excess of $15,306.25.
Buttke answered the complaint and also raised several issues by motion. 2 The circuit court heard Buttke's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and held that the notice of termination was defective in that it attempted to terminate the dealership agreement in 10 days rather than in 90 days and that the eviction action was commenced prematurely in that it was commenced prior to the expiration of the 90-day period. 3 White Hen Pantry's eviction complaint was dismissed.
The court of appeals reversed the circuit court holding the 90-days' prior written notice requirement set forth in sec. 135.04, Stats. inapplicable to a termination for nonpayment of sums due. The court of appeals interpreted the statute as follows: "sec. 135.04, Stats. mandates a 90-day notice of termination with a 60-day period in which to cure the stated defects, except in cases of insolvency, assignment for benefit of creditors or bankruptcy (when no requirement of a notice of termination or default is necessary), and in cases of nonpayment of moneys owed (when a ten-day notice of default is required)." (Emphasis in original.)
Whether 10 days' or 90 days' notice is required is a question of statutory construction which is a question of law. We begin, as did the circuit court and the court of appeals, by considering the language of the statute. Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. Pubic Service Comm'n, 81 Wis.2d 344, 350, 260 N.W.2d 712 (1978). 4
Sec. 135.04, Stats.1977, entitled "Notice of termination or change in dealership," sets forth the notice requirements as follows:
The first sentence of sec. 135.04, Stats.1977, requires 90 days' prior written notice of termination "except as provided" in sec. 135.04, Stats. 5 Sec. 135.04 provides only one exception to this 90-day notice requirement, explicitly stating in the fourth sentence that "if the reason for termination, cancellation or nonrenewal is insolvency, the occurrence of an assignment for the benefit of creditors or bankruptcy," then "(t)he notice provisions of this section shall not apply." We can find in sec. 135.04 no other exception to the requirement of 90 days' prior written notice.
Sec. 135.04 prescribes the contents of the 90-days' written notice. In all instances in which the 90-days' prior written notice is required, the notice must state the grantor's reasons for termination and the time within which the dealer may rectify or remedy the grantor's stated grievance. The legislature has provided that the specific content of the 90-days' written notice depends on whether the grantor's reason for termination is non-payment of sums due or is some other claimed deficiency.
If the grantor's reason for termination is a dealer deficiency other than the nonpayment of the sums due under the dealership the dealer is entitled to written notice setting forth "all the reasons for termination." (Second sentence of sec. 135.04.) On the other hand if the grantor's reason for termination is the dealer's nonpayment of sums due under the dealership, the dealer is "entitled to written notice of such default." (Final sentence of sec. 135.04.) These are parallel provisions. Both allude to the 90 days' prior written notice. Both require the written notice to set forth a specific statement of the reason for termination. The statement of reasons identifies the deficiency or default which jeopardizes the dealership and enables the dealer to concentrate his business effort on remedying the claimed defect.
The dealer may rectify or remedy the "nonpayment of sums due" or "any (other) claimed deficiency" within a time period defined by the legislature in sec. 135.04. For claimed deficiencies other than nonpayment, "the dealer has 60 days in which to rectify" the deficiency (second sentence of sec. 135.04), and if the deficiency is rectified within that time period, the notice shall be void" (third sentence of sec. 135.04). If the default occurs by reason of nonpayment of sums due, a shorter period applies. The legislature has provided "the dealer ... shall have 10 days in which to remedy such default (of nonpayment) from the date of delivery or posting of such notice. " (Final sentence of sec. 135.04.) The legislature did not expressly state that if the default is remedied within 10 days the notice is void.
In referring to default by nonpayment, the statute uses the phrase "10 days in which to remedy such default"; in referring to other claimed deficiencies the statutory phrase is "60 days in which to rectify any claimed deficiency." The words "rectify" and "remedy" are synonyms, and it is clear that the words are used interchangeably in sec. 135.04, Stats.1977. The difference between the time periods within which the dealer may rectify any claimed deficiency or remedy the nonpayment apparently reflects a legislative determination and a legislative policy as to the time in which it is reasonable to require the deficiency or default to be corrected.
The court of appeals rejected the construction that sec. 135.04, Stats.1977, requires a 90-day notice period which includes a 10-day "cure" period, explaining:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vonesh
...The Legislative Reference Bureau may be resorted to as a resource to determine legislative history. White Hen Pantry v. Buttke, 100 Wis.2d 169, 177 n. 8, 301 N.W.2d 216, 221 (1981). The Legislative Reference Bureau is a part of the legislature and its duties include maintaining the drafting......
-
Caldwell v. Percy
...the whole statute. White Hen Pantry v. Buttke, 98 Wis.2d 119, 122, 295 N.W.2d 763, 764 (Ct.App.1980), rev'd on other grounds, 100 Wis.2d 169, 301 N.W.2d 216 (1981) (citations We also bear in mind the "cardinal rule" that we are to seek the purpose of the act as a whole and to favor a constr......
-
Bruno Wine & Spirits, Inc. v. Guimarra Vineyards
...or bankruptcy" provision establishes an exclusive statutory exception to the notice requirement, White Hen Pantry v. Buttke, 100 Wis.2d 169, 174, 301 N.W.2d 216, 219 (1981), the precise nature of the kind of "reason" that triggers the exception has not been judicially determined. At issue i......
-
Drangstviet v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
...statute. See White Hen Pantry v. Buttke, 98 Wis.2d 119, 122, 295 N.W.2d 763, 764 (Ct.App.1980), rev'd on other grounds, 100 Wis.2d 169, 301 N.W.2d 216 (1981). Thus, we conclude the Kohnen court's determination that "occupied" is ambiguous is not dispositive in this We conclude that § 632.05......
-
Direct Benefits Estoppel: 7th Cir. Explains How You Can Be Compelled To Arbitrate Without Agreeing To Do So
...arbitration clause. It didn't help Renee's argument that the only case she cited to support her argument, White Hen Pantry v. Buttke, 100 Wis. 2d 169, 301 N.W.2d 316 (1981), "has nothing to do with" the Law's effect on arbitration. The court noted that the arbitration process is governed by......