On Point: 1. 806.07, relief from jdgmt

State v. Peter John Long, 2022AP496, District 2, 5/3/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The state concedes, and the court of appeals agrees, that Long is entitled to a hearing on his motion to reopen the default judgment entered in his refusal proceeding.

Last week SCOTUS issued Kemp v. United States construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). That rule allows a party to seek relief based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” within one year of the date on which a judgment becomes final. Wisconsin’s analog is §806.07.  The issue in Kemp was whether the term “mistake” means mistakes by parties or whether it includes mistakes by judges.

State v. Michael R. Hess, 2015AP2423, 7/20/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication) case activity

A decade after the circuit court entered a default judgment and revoked Hess’s license due to a drunk-driving event, he filed a motion to vacate per §806.07(1)(h). He claimed that he was not served with the notice of intent to revoke required by §343.05 and due process. On appeal Hess prevails in an opinion reaffirming that there is no deadline for filing a motion to vacate a void judgment.

City of Waukesha v. James F. Murphy, 2010AP2499, District 1/2, 11/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Murphy: Leonard G. Adent; case activity

The City obtained dismissal of a then-pending OWI-1st, after discovering that Murphy had an OWI-related conviction. (Per Walworth Cnty. v. Rohner, 108 Wis. 2d 713, 722, 324 N.W.2d 682 (1982), the State has exclusive authority over second and subsequent drunk driving offenses.) However,

Shelly J. v. Leslie W., 2011AP753, District 4, 7/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Shelly J.:  Amy J. Lamerand Zott; case activity

Shelly’s motion to reopen her TPR judgment, 7 years after she successfully petitioned for voluntary termination, was untimely under the 1-year deadline imposed by § 806.07(1)(a) and (c), nor did she show “extraordinary circumstances” under subs. (h). As to her claim that the judgment was void under subs.

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed
For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in granting the state’s motion to vacate an SVP order for supervised release entered, but not implemented, almost four years earlier.

Holding: Under § 806.07(1)(h), there is no deadline for relieving a party from a judgment or order, so long as “extraordinary circumstances”

State v. Joseph Schultz, 224 Wis.2d 499, 591 N.W.2d 904 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Schultz: Robert R. Raehsler

Issue/Holding: A party in a civil case may seek relief from judgment under Wis. Stats., § 806.07. Where the basis for the motion is “mistake,” the primary question is whether the party’s conduct “was excusable under the circumstances.” Schultz should have been allowed to reopen a judgment so that he could litigate a crucial issue that he justifiably,