Preview:

2000  WI  112
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further editing
and modification.  The final version will
appear in the bound volume of the official
reports.
No.                                                                            98-1276
                                                                               STATE  OF  WISCONSIN                                        :   IN  SUPREME  COURT
FILED
Donald  Rumage,
Plaintiff-Appellant,                                                           OCT 19, 2000
Cornelia G. Clark
v.
Clerk of Supreme Court
Madison, WI
Robert  M.  Gullberg,  Janet  Gullberg,
Advantage  Bank  F.S.B.,  and  The  Bank  of
Elmwood,
Defendants-Respondents.
¶1    PER    CURIAM                                                            (on    motion    for    reconsideration).
Plaintiff-Appellant  Donald  Rumage  moves  for  reconsideration  of
our  decision  in  Rumage  v.  Gullberg,  2000  WI  53,  235  Wis.  2d  279,
611   N.W.2d                                                                   458,   on   grounds   that   the   court   overlooked   a
controlling  fact  appearing  in  the  record.     Rumage  argues  that
Reinier  Kemeling  sold  his  residential  property  in  a  voluntary
private  sale,  during  a  mortgage  foreclosure  redemption  period,
in  contemplation  of  an  imminent  sheriff's  sale.    He  argues  that
a  sale  under  these  circumstances  was  a  sale  under  "compulsion,"
not  an  arms-length  transaction  under  no  compulsion  that  produces
fair  market  value.




No.  98-1276
¶2    After    careful    consideration,    we    conclude    that
appellant's  argument  is  without  merit  in  this  case.    In  ¶  45  of
the  court's  opinion  we  state:    "Judge  Simanek  found  no  evidence
of  collusion  or  fraud  between  Kemeling  and  Burmeister."     This
sentence  is  herewith  amended  to  read:     "Judge  Simanek  found  no
evidence  of  compulsion,  collusion  or  fraud  between  Kemeling  and
Burmeister."     The  record  does  not  demonstrate  that  the  circuit
court's  finding  was  clearly  erroneous.
¶3    The   motion   for   reconsideration   is   denied   without
costs.
2




No.  98-1276
1

Download 17396.pdf

Wisconsin Law