Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
NOTICE
DECISION
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 26, 2013
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Diane M. Fremgen                                                      petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals                                             Court of Appeals.   See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.
Cir. Ct. Nos.   2009CV818
Appeal Nos.                                                           2011AP2927
2012AP1161
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                    IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                      DISTRICT III
U.S. BANK, N.A.,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V.
CRAIG W. JOHNSON AND SUSAN M. JOHNSON,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS,
FIRST STATE BANK OF WYOMING,
DEFENDANT.
APPEALS from orders of the circuit court for Polk County:   ERIC J.
LUNDELL, Judge.   Appeal dismissed; order affirmed.
Before  Hoover, P.J.,  Mangerson, J.,  and  Thomas  Cane,  Reserve
Judge.




Nos.   2011AP2927, 2012AP1161
¶1                                                                                                   PER CURIAM.    Craig and Susan Johnson appeal an order denying
their motion to vacate a foreclosure judgment.   In a separate appeal, the Johnsons
contend  the  circuit  court  erred  by  denying  their  motion  for  post-judgment
discovery.   U.S. Bank, N.A., argues the order denying the Johnsons’ motion to
vacate is not appealable because the motion merely relitigated issues that were
disposed of in the previous judgment.   U.S. Bank also argues the circuit court
properly  exercised  its  discretion  by  denying  the  Johnsons’  motion  for  post-
judgment  discovery.    We  agree  on  both  counts.    We  therefore  dismiss  the
Johnsons’ appeal from the order denying their motion to vacate, and we affirm the
order denying the Johnsons’ post-judgment discovery motion.
BACKGROUND1
¶2                                                                                                   U.S. Bank filed a summons and complaint on October  19,  2009,
seeking a foreclosure judgment against the Johnsons.   The complaint alleged that
the Johnsons had executed a note and mortgage in favor of Community National
Bank,  and  Community  National  Bank  subsequently assigned  the  mortgage  to
Firststar Bank, N.A.    The complaint further alleged that Firststar Bank is now
known  as  U.S.  Bank.    Finally,  the  complaint  alleged  that  the  Johnsons  had
defaulted on their loan and owed U.S. Bank $236,326.17.
1  U.S. Bank’s brief contains no citations to the record; instead, U.S. Bank cites only to
the Johnsons’ appendix.   We admonish U.S. Bank that WIS. STAT. RULES 809.19(1)(d) and (e)
require appropriate citations to the record on appeal, and references to a brief’s appendix do not
qualify.   See United Rentals, Inc. v. City of Madison, 2007 WI App 131, ¶1 n.2, 302 Wis. 2d
245, 733 N.W.2d 322.
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2011-12 version unless otherwise
noted.
2




Nos.   2011AP2927, 2012AP1161
¶3                                                                                    Attached  to  the  complaint  were  copies  of  a  note  and  mortgage,
which were signed by the Johnsons and listed Community National Bank as the
lender.    The  last  page  of  the  note  contains  an  undated  endorsement  from
Community National Bank to “U.S. Bank N.A.”   An “Assignment of Mortgage”
from Community National Bank to “Firststar Bank, N.A.” was also attached to the
complaint.
¶4                                                                                    On September 1, 2010, U.S. Bank moved for summary judgment.   In
support of its motion, U.S. Bank submitted an affidavit of Maria Lawrence, who
averred that she is an employee of U.S. Bank and is the “[c]ustodian of the records
kept in the ordinary course of business in the name(s) of CRAIG W. JOHNSON
and SUSAN M. JOHNSON.”   Lawrence averred that she “reviewed all the records
for this account” and  “ma[de] this Affidavit based upon personal knowledge.”
She further averred that:                                                             (1) the Johnsons executed a note and mortgage in favor
of  Community  National  Bank;                                                        (2)  Community  National  Bank  assigned  the
mortgage to Firststar Bank; (3) Firststar Bank is now known as U.S. Bank; and
(4) the Johnsons defaulted on the note by failing to make the required monthly
payments.
¶5                                                                                    In response, the Johnsons, pro se, sent the circuit court a newspaper
article  suggesting                                                                   “that  numerous  lenders  have  used  inaccurate  or  incomplete
documents to remove delinquent owners from their houses.”   The Johnsons stated,
“[W]e’d like to know whether Maria Lawrence  … does indeed have  ‘personal
knowledge’ of our account.”   In addition, they asked “to see evidence that [U.S.
Bank] actually holds title on the [mortgaged] property.   Not the mortgage papers,
but the actual title.”
3




Nos.   2011AP2927, 2012AP1161
¶6                                                                                       The Johnsons also moved to dismiss U.S. Bank’s complaint.   They
contended U.S. Bank had failed to prove it owned their note, and, as a result, it did
not have standing to seek foreclosure.   They also repeated their allegation that
Lawrence’s  affidavit  was                                                               “robo-signed,”  and  they  asserted  that  some  of  the
mortgage documents submitted by U.S. Bank were  “fabricated after the fact.”
U.S. Bank disputed these allegations in a response filed February 22, 2011.
¶7                                                                                       The  circuit  court  subsequently  granted  U.S.  Bank  summary
judgment.    The  court  concluded  there  was  no  genuine  issue  of  material  fact
regarding U.S. Bank’s ownership of the note and mortgage.   The court also stated
it was undisputed that the Johnsons were in default.    Consequently, the court
entered a foreclosure judgment in favor of U.S. Bank on May 4, 2011.
¶8                                                                                       The Johnsons did not appeal the foreclosure judgment.   However, on
June 9, 2011, now represented by counsel, they moved the circuit court to vacate
the judgment pursuant to WIS. STAT.  § 806.07(1).   Again, the Johnsons argued
U.S. Bank had not established that it owned the note and mortgage.   Specifically,
they alleged the relevant averments in Lawrence’s affidavit were inadmissible
because  they were  not  based  on  personal  knowledge.    They also  alleged  the
mortgage documents submitted by U.S. Bank were “fraudulent.”
¶9                                                                                       The  circuit  court  denied  the  Johnsons’  motion  to  vacate  on
September 28, 2011, reasoning that the motion “simply repackage[ed] the same
arguments previously addressed by the Court in its summary judgment decision.”
The  court  also  concluded  that  Lawrence’s  affidavit  was  based  on  personal
knowledge, and that, even without the affidavit,  “U.S. Bank submitted enough
admissible  evidence to establish that it not only owned the note  but that the
4




Nos.   2011AP2927, 2012AP1161
Johnsons were in default.”   The Johnsons filed a notice of appeal from the court’s
September 28 order.
¶10    On  December  15,  2011,  U.S.  Bank  assigned  its  interest  in  the
foreclosure judgment to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie
Mac) for “One Dollar  ($1.00) and other valuable consideration.”   On the same
date, Freddie Mac purchased the mortgaged property at a sheriff’s sale.   In light of
the assignment to Freddie Mac, the Johnsons asked the court to delay confirming
the  sheriff’s  sale  and  to  allow  the  Johnsons  to                                  “conduct  discovery  into  the
relationship  between  U.S.  Bank  and  [Freddie  Mac].”    Shortly  thereafter,  the
Johnsons  served  requests  for  admissions,  interrogatories,  and  requests  for
production of documents on U.S. Bank.
¶11    U.S. Bank objected to the  Johnsons’ discovery requests, arguing
they were outside the scope of discovery permitted by WIS. STAT. § 804.01(2).   In
response, the Johnsons asked the circuit court to exercise its equitable authority to
allow post-judgment discovery.    Following a hearing, the court concluded the
Johnsons’ requested discovery was not permissible under § 804.01(2).   The court
therefore denied the Johnsons’ motion and confirmed the sheriff’s sale.      The
Johnsons  then  filed  a  second  notice  of  appeal  from  the  order  denying  their
discovery motion.
DISCUSSION
¶12    In their first appeal, the Johnsons argue the circuit court erred by
denying their motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment.    However, the order
denying that motion is not an appealable order.   It is black-letter law in Wisconsin
that “there is no right to appeal from an order or judgment entered on a motion to
modify or vacate a judgment where the only issues raised were disposed of in the
5




Nos.   2011AP2927, 2012AP1161
prior order or judgment.”   See La Crosse Trust Co. v. Bluske, 99 Wis. 2d 427,
429, 299 N.W.2d 302 (Ct. App. 1980).   This rule applies to motions brought under
WIS. STAT.  § 806.07(1).    See Shuput v. Lauer,  109 Wis. 2d  164,  176-77,  325
N.W.2d  321  (1982).    Although the effect of the rule is sometimes harsh,  “the
policy behind the rule is to prevent a party from extending the time to appeal by
filing a motion [to vacate].”   La Crosse Trust, 99 Wis. 2d at 429.
¶13    The only issues raised in the Johnsons’ motion to vacate had already
been disposed of on summary judgment.    Both the motion to vacate and the
Johnsons’ summary judgment filings argued that:                                       (1) U.S. Bank failed to prove it
owned the note and mortgage; (2) Lawrence’s affidavit was not based on personal
knowledge; and (3) U.S. Bank falsified the mortgage documents it submitted to
the court.   The circuit court rejected these arguments in its summary judgment
decision.   The motion to vacate did not raise any additional arguments.   Because
the motion to vacate only raised issues that had been disposed of on summary
judgment, the order denying the motion is not an appealable order.   See id.   We
therefore dismiss the Johnsons’ appeal from the order denying their motion to
vacate.
¶14    In their second appeal, the Johnsons argue the circuit court erred by
denying their motion for post-judgment discovery.   A circuit court’s decision to
permit or prohibit discovery is reviewed for an erroneous exercise of discretion.
Vincent & Vincent, Inc. v. Spacek, 102 Wis. 2d 266, 270, 306 N.W.2d 85 (Ct.
App. 1981).   A court erroneously exercises its discretion by making an error of
law or failing to base its decision on the facts of record.   Bethke v. Auto-Owners
Ins. Co., 2013 WI  16,  ¶16,  345 Wis. 2d 533,  825 N.W.2d 482.   The Johnsons
argue the circuit court made an error of law when it concluded that WIS. STAT.
§ 804.01(2)  did  not  permit  them  to  conduct  post-judgment  discovery.    The
6




Nos.   2011AP2927, 2012AP1161
application of a statute to undisputed facts presents an issue of law that we review
independently.    Ansani v. Cascade  Mountain, Inc.,  223 Wis. 2d  39,  45,  588
N.W.2d 321 (Ct. App. 1998).
¶15     WISCONSIN STAT.  § 804.01(2)(a) states, in pertinent part,  “Parties
may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the
subject matter involved in the pending action[.]”    U.S. Bank contends that the
Johnsons’  post-judgment  discovery  requests  were  not  relevant  to  the  subject
matter of a pending action.   We agree.
¶16    The Johnsons’ discovery requests were aimed at unearthing evidence
that U.S. Bank did not actually own the note and mortgage.   However, that issue
was resolved by the foreclosure judgment and was no longer pending at the time
the Johnsons filed their requests.    A judgment of foreclosure  “determines the
rights of the parties and disposes of the entire matter in litigation[.]”   Hackmann
v. Behm, 207 Wis. 2d  437, 443, 558 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App.  1996).   While the
circuit court retains jurisdiction over the case after the foreclosure judgment is
entered, the court’s only role is to oversee the  “statutory proceedings  [that]  …
carry into effect and enforce the judgment of foreclosure and sale.”   Id.   Thus,
after  a  foreclosure  judgment  has  been  entered,  the  substantive  rights  of  the
parties—including   the   ownership   of   the   note—are   no   longer   at   issue.
Consequently, post-judgment discovery requests that relate to the ownership of the
note are not relevant to the subject matter of a pending action.   As a result, the
Johnsons’  post-judgment  discovery  requests  were  not  permissible  under  WIS.
STAT. § 804.01(2).
¶17    The  Johnsons  nevertheless  argue  the  circuit  court  should  have
exercised its equitable authority to permit post-judgment discovery.   See GMAC
7




Nos.   2011AP2927, 2012AP1161
Mortg.  Corp.  v.  Gisvold,                                                            215  Wis.                                                             2d  459,   480,   572  N.W.2d  466  (1998)
(“Foreclosure proceedings are equitable in nature, and the circuit court has the
equitable authority to exercise discretion throughout the proceedings.”).   But, as
U.S. Bank points out, the Johnsons offered no convincing reason for the court to
exercise its discretion in that way.   The Johnsons merely speculated, based on U.S.
Bank’s assignment of the foreclosure judgment to Freddie Mac, that Freddie Mac
had always been the note’s true owner.   However, U.S. Bank presented the circuit
court with an alternative explanation for the assignment:   that Freddie Mac insured
the loan and was therefore ultimately responsible for the loss.   Moreover, U.S.
Bank noted that the Johnsons had ample time to conduct discovery regarding the
note’s ownership before the foreclosure judgment was entered, but they failed to
do so.   Based on U.S. Bank’s assertions, the court could properly conclude that
post-judgment discovery was not warranted.   We therefore agree with U.S. Bank
that the court properly exercised its discretion by denying the Johnsons’ motion
for post-judgment discovery.
By the Court.—Appeal dismissed; order affirmed.
                                                                                       This  opinion  will  not  be  published.     See  WIS.  STAT.  RULE
809.23(1)                                                                              (b)5.
8

Download 2011ap002927.pdf

Wisconsin Law