Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
NOTICE
DATED AND FILED
This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in the
bound volume of the Official Reports.
March 3, 1998
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
                                                                                                       Marilyn L. Graves                                  petition  to  review  an  adverse  decision  by  the
                                                                                                       Clerk, Court of Appeals                            Court of Appeals.  See § 808.10 and RULE 809.62,
                                                                                                       of Wisconsin                                       STATS.
No.                                                                                                    97-3361
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                                     IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III
DOUGLAS NIEMANN AND ELAINE NIEMANN,
PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
V.
STEVE   ADLER,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Oconto County:
PETER C. DILTZ, Judge.   Affirmed.
HOOVER, J.                                                                                             Steve  Adler  appeals  a  trial  court  judgment
dismissing his demand for a trial de novo before a circuit judge following the court
commissioner’s judgment in a small claims action.   We affirm.1
1  Adler  also  presents  numerous  arguments  challenging  the  substance  of  the  court
commissioner's decision.  The trial court did not hear the issues because it determined that Adler's
demand for a trial de novo was untimely.   This court does not have jurisdiction over a court
commissioner's decision and therefore only addresses the demand for trial de novo issue.




No. 97-3361
Adler rented a house from the Niemanns around June 1995.    He did
not have a lease, but instead rented on a month-to-month basis.   On April 2, 1997,
the  Niemanns  gave  Adler  a  twenty-eight-day  written  notice  terminating  the
tenancy.   Adler remained on the property, however, requiring the Niemanns to file
a small claims eviction action.   The Niemanns were granted a judgment of eviction
ordering Adler out of the property on May 31, 1997.
A trial was held concerning the Niemanns' claim for unpaid rent for
the  month  of  May.     Adler  counterclaimed,  raising  numerous  arguments.
Following  the  trial,  the  court  commissioner  awarded  the  Niemanns                  $650,
representing double the rent for the month of May.   He also awarded Adler $105
on his counterclaim.                                                                      The Niemanns therefore netted a recovery of $545, plus
costs and attorney fees.
Adler  filed  a  motion  for  reconsideration,  which  was  denied  on
August  26.    Pursuant to  § 799.207(3), STATS., Adler filed a demand for trial,
seeking a trial de novo before the circuit court.    Adler signed the demand on
September  10; it was filed September  11.   The Niemanns brought a motion to
dismiss on the grounds that the demand for trial was not filed within the statutory
time limit of fifteen days.   The court concluded that by filing the demand for trial
on September  11, Adler was one day late.    The court therefore dismissed the
demand for trial.
Section  799.207(3), STATS., provides an absolute right to have a
small  claims  matter  heard  before  the  court  if  the  appealing  party  meets  the
requirements of the section.   Section 799.207(3)(c) provides:                            “The demand for
trial must be filed with the court and mailed to the other parties within … 15 days
from the date of mailing of a written decision.”
2




No. 97-3361
Adler first claims that he filed his demand for trial on September 10
because he signed the demand and mailed it to the clerk of court on September 10.
The  clerk’s  filing  stamp  on  the  demand,  however,  is  September                    11.    Adler
incorrectly asserts that the filing date is the date he mailed the demand.   Rather,
§ 799.207(3)(c), STATS., specifically provides that the demand must be filed with
the court and mailed to the other parties within fifteen days.   Filing with the court
is accomplished by having the clerk file stamp the document.   The date stamp is
usually accepted as proof of the date of filing.   See Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v.
International Rectifier Corp., 91 Wis.2d 813, 822, 284 N.W.2d 93, 97 (1979).
Adler also contends that the court commissioner’s judgment denying
reconsideration was rendered August  26, but not mailed until August  27.   The
Niemanns filed an affidavit made by their attorney that averred the mailing date
was August 26.   Adler offers no support for the contention that the judgment was
not mailed August 26.   Further, from the partial transcript provided to this court, it
does not appear Adler contested before the court that the commissioner mailed the
judgment  on  August 26.    This court independently considered and researched
whether the  court could rely on the Niemanns' attorney’s affidavit listing the
mailing date of the judgment as August 26.   This court concludes that whether the
judgment  was  mailed  on  August  26  is  an  issue  of  fact  and  the  court  had  a
sufficient basis in the record making the finding that the judgment was mailed
August 26.   See § 807.17(2), STATS.   Therefore, the court correctly determined
that by filing the demand for trial on September 11, Adler was a day late meeting
the fifteen-day time limit set forth in § 799.207(3)(c), STATS.
This court further independently considered whether § 801.15(5)(a),
STATS.,  applied,  lengthening  the  time  in  which  Adler  had  to  act  following
notification of the commissioner’s judgment.   That section provides that when a
3




No. 97-3361
party has a right or is required to do something within a specified time after
service of a notice, three days shall be added to the prescribed period when notice
is served by mail.   This court concludes that § 801.15(5)(a) does not apply in the
demand for trial under § 799.207(3), STATS.   The latter section explicitly provides
both the manner of serving notice  (the mailing of the judgment) and the time
period  the  party  is  required  to  act.    The  three-day extension  provided  under
§ 801.15(5)(a)  appears  to  apply only  where  alternative  methods  of  notice  are
contemplated, so that if the notifying party chooses to provide notice through mail,
the recipient has three extra days in which to act.   The specificity of § 799.207(3)
precludes application of the three-day extension under § 801.15(5)(a).
Further,  Adler  claims  that  the  court  erred  by  failing  to  impose
sanctions on the Niemanns for failing to respond to his interrogatories.   For a court
to impose sanctions, an order compelling discovery must be in place and violated.
See § 804.12(1), STATS.   There was no order compelling discovery in the small
claims trial.   Therefore, no order was violated that would permit imposition of
sanctions.
In addition, the costs assessed against Adler were appropriate.   The
prevailing party in a small claims action is entitled to statutory attorney fees.
Section 799.25, STATS.    For a judgment granting the Niemanns  $545,  $50 for
attorney fees is the correct amount.   See §§ 799.25(10)(a) and 814.04(1), STATS.
The other statutory costs were also appropriate.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published.   RULE 809.23(1)(b)4, STATS.
4

Download 13281.pdf

Wisconsin Law