The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has affirmed a default judgment in a vehicle repossession lawsuit, ruling that a defendant who admitted he knew about his court date but did not show up had no good cause to reopen the case, even though he disputed whether he was ever properly served.
The background: The dispute arose after a lender holding a lien on the defendant’s pickup truck moved to repossess it.
- The plaintiff mailed the defendant two notices of his right to cure the default, sending each by certified and regular mail. The certified notice to the first address came back unclaimed and marked unable to forward, while the certified notice to a second address was delivered.
- Before filing suit, the plaintiff pulled skiptrace reports to confirm the defendant’s address. Those reports identified the second address as the best one and showed that the first address had expired about a year earlier.
- The plaintiff filed a small claims action and tried to serve the defendant in person at the second, confirmed, address three times without success. On the final attempt, someone at the door said the defendant did not live there.
- The plaintiff then served the defendant by publishing the summons in a local daily newspaper, which included a new hearing date and warned that the court could enter judgment if he failed to attend.
- Two days before that hearing, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for improper service and registered to receive court documents electronically. He did not attend the hearing, and the court entered a default judgment against him.
The ruling: The Appeals Court sided with the plaintiff.
- Because the circuit court decided the motion on good cause, it never reached the defendant’s argument that defective service left the court without personal jurisdiction over him.
- The defendant’s only explanation for not appearing was his belief that he did not have to, because he “had less than two days notice.” The judge was unpersuaded, pointing out that the defendant had filed his motion to dismiss and opted into electronic notice in the days before the hearing.
- Quoting earlier precedent, the Appeals Court wrote that “a party failing to appear in court does so at its own peril,” and that a litigant cannot unilaterally excuse himself from showing up.
- Finding no good cause, the Appeals Court held that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion.
