Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Shirley Carson defaulted on loan payments, Bank sought a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged premises. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Bank of New York Mellon (“the Bank”). More than sixteen months after the judgment of foreclosure was entered, the Bank had not sold the property. Carson filed a motion to amend the judgment to include a finding that the property was abandoned and an order that the Bank bring the property to sale within five weeks from the date of entry of the amended judgment. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that it lacked the authority to order the Bank to sell the property at a specific time under Wis. Stat. 846.102. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the court may use its contempt authority to order a sale under these circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) when the circuit court determines that a property is abandoned, section 846.102 authorizes the court to order a mortgagee to bring the property to sale after the redemption period; and (2) because the circuit court in this case did not reach the issue of whether the property had been abandoned, the case must be remanded. View "Bank of New York v. Carson" on Justia Law

118th Street Kenosha, LLC (the LLC) owned commercial property in the City of Kenosha. Before 2010, the commercial property had direct access to 118th Avenue. In 2010, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) relocated 118th Avenue, leaving the commercial property with no direct access to the street. The LLC sought to recover damages under Wis. Stat. 32.09(6g) for the commercial property’s diminution in value caused by the relocation of 118th Avenue. The circuit court granted the DOT’s motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of damages caused by the LLC’s loss of direct access and proximity to 118th Avenue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the LLC was precluded from seeking damages under section 32.09(6g) for the commercial property’s diminution in value resulting from its loss of direct access and proximity to 118th Avenue due to the 118th Avenue relocation. View "118th Street Kenosha, LLC v. Wis. Dep’t of Transp." on Justia Law

In 2002, the Wilcoxes purchased property from the Somas. A strip of land separated the Wilcox’s property from a lake. In 2011, the Wilcoxes brought a claim for title by adverse possession against the owners of the lakefront strip. The circuit court dismissed the adverse possession claim after noting that the Somas had specifically disclaimed ownership of the lakefront strip and had sought and received permission to make improvements to the property from an entity the Somas mistakenly believed was its true owner. The court of appeals reversed, holding that evidence of the Somas’ permission to use the lakefront strip came from a non-owner and was therefore irrelevant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court properly considered the Somas’ subjective intent and did not err in concluding that the Wilcoxes failed to establish adverse possession for the requisite statutory period. View "Wilcox v. Estate of Hines" on Justia Law

In 2009, Plaintiff purchased a condominium unit. Before closing, the sellers’ attorney informed Plaintiff that a mortgage from 2001 was mistakenly listed on the title commitment. The information was incorrect, however, and the mortgage, purportedly owed to Defendant, went unsatisfied at the time of closing. Plaintiff sought a declaration that the 2001 mortgage was not an enforceable lien at the time because Defendant was unable to produce documentation indicating that the mortgage was assigned to Defendant at the time of closing in violation of the statute of frauds. The Supreme Court concluded that Defendant could properly enforce the mortgage at the time Plaintiff purchased the property because the doctrine of equitable assignment, which exempts mortgage assignments from the statute of frauds, applied in this case. The Court then remanded on the issue of whether Defendant had the necessary documents to enforce the note in question. View "Dow Family, LLC v. PHH Mortgage Corp." on Justia Law

In 2009, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against, among other defendants, First American Title Insurance Company, with whom Plaintiffs had a title insurance policy for their property, for failing to defend the title to their property. As part of the settlement between Plaintiffs and defendants John and Jane Stevenson, the Stevensons paid Plaintiffs for an assignment of their rights under the title insurance policy, including any claims against First American. The Stevensons subsequently filed a cross-claim against First American for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and bad faith for refusing to defend the title to Plaintiffs’ lot. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Stevensons and awarded the Stevensons compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages to punish First American’s bad faith. The circuit court allowed the bad faith finding and the punitive damages award to stand. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the punitive damages award in this case was excessive and deprived First American of its right to due process, and (2) the appropriate amount of punitive damages in this case was $210,000. View "Kimble v. Land Concepts, Inc." on Justia Law

The City of Oshkosh levied special assessments against a corner lot property owned by CED Properties, LLC (“CED”). The City issued two special assessments, one for the portion of CED’s property bordering Jackson Street and one for the portion running alongside Murdock Avenue. CED appealed the special assessments by filing a complaint with the circuit court. CED then filed an amended complaint well past the ninety-day time limit to appeal. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to the City, holding that CED failed to appeal the Jackson Street special assessment within the required ninety-day time limit. The court of appeals affirmed but on different grounds. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) CED’s original complaint, which was filed within the required ninety-day time period, was sufficient to appeal not only the Murdock Avenue special assessment but also the Jackson Street special assessment; and (2) CED’s complaint was sufficient to place the City on notice that CED intended to appeal both the Jackson Street and Murdock Avenue special assessments. View "CED Props., LLC v. City of Oshkosh" on Justia Law

The Town Assessor valued Taxpayer’s real property at $27,500, classified the property as “productive forest land,” and assessed the property at $27,500. Taxpayer claimed that the Assessor’s classification of his property was erroneous and that the Town Board of Review should change the classification to “undeveloped land,” which would result in an assessment of $13,750. The Board refused to lower the assessment. The circuit court and court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in light of the evidence that the Board received, the Board could reasonably conclude that Taxpayer did not demonstrate that the classification was incorrect and that the assessment should be lowered. View "Sausen v. Town of Black Creek Bd. of Review" on Justia Law

Defendant-sellers obtained a policy from American Family Mutual Insurance Company insuring an apartment building. When preparing for the sale of the building, Defendants signed a real estate condition report stating that they were not aware of the presence of asbestos on the premises. After Plaintiff-buyers purchased the building, their contractor discovered asbestos in the building. Plaintiffs filed an action against Defendants for breach of contract/warranty and negligence in failing to adequately disclose defective conditions. The circuit court held that American Family had no duty to defend or indemnify Defendants because an asbestos exclusion in the American Family policy precluded coverage. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the policy precluded coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the asbestos exclusion in the American Family policy precluded coverage for the losses alleged by Plaintiffs. View "Phillips v. Parmelee" on Justia Law

Amjad Tufail leased property to Midwest Hospitality pursuant to a lease agreement. The City Board of Zoning Appeals ultimately approved Midwest's application for a special use permit to operate a Church's Chicken fast-food restaurant with a drive-through on the property but placed conditions on the permit. Midwest subsequently notified Tufail that it was no longer responsible for lease payments because Tufail made a false representation to Midwest regarding the terms of the lease. Specifically, Midwest contended that Tufail represented that Midwest may not be prevented from using the property for certain specified purposes. Tufail brought this breach of contract action against Midwest. Midwest counterclaimed for breach of contract, deceptive advertising, and unjust enrichment. The trial court ruled in favor of Tufail. The court of appeals reversed, determining that Midwest's early termination of the lease was justified by Tufail's misrepresentation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Tufail's representation was not false where (1) the representation did not include any use of the property as a Church's Chicken fast-food restaurant with a drive-through; and (2) the circuit court found Midwest was not prevented from using the property for the uses specified in the lease. Remanded. View "Tufail v. Midwest Hospitality, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendants executed guaranty contracts in order to secure financing to run their business operations. Bank subsequently commenced foreclosure proceedings on the business. Afterwards, Bank commenced an action against Defendants seeking payment under the guaranty contracts. Defendants, in response, alleged several counterclaims and affirmative defenses. Bank filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Defendants' counterclaims and affirmative defenses were derivative of the corporation, and therefore Defendants lacked standing to raise them. Bank also asserted that Defendants' affirmative defenses were barred because they were subject to claim preclusion. The circuit court ultimately granted summary judgment to Bank. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Defendants' counterclaims and affirmative defenses were derivative and that they lacked standing to raise them in this action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Bank was entitled to summary judgment dismissing all of Defendants' counterclaims, as each of the counterclaims was derivative; (2) Defendants' affirmative defenses did not defeat Bank's demand under the guaranties for payment; and (3) the circuit court correctly granted summary judgment to Bank because Defendants failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact showing payment was not due. View "Park Bank v. Westburg" on Justia Law