Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Connor v. Connor

Date: 05-18-2001

Case Number: 99-0157, 99-1042

Judge: William A. Bablitch

Court: Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Plaintiff's Attorney: Ann E. Stevning-Roe and Juneau, Minder, Gross & Stevning-Roe, S.C., Marshfield, and oral argument by Ann E. Stevning-Roe.

Defendant's Attorney: Mark E. Sostarich and Petrie & Stocking S.C., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Mark E. Sostarich.

Description:
J.Sara Connor (defendant) petitions us to review a decision of the court of appeals that denied her relief from a default judgment entered against her. The circuit court, Judge Robert A. Kennedy presiding, entered the default judgment against her because she failed to serve her answer to a complaint filed by Anderson B. and Thelma A. Connor (plaintiffs) within the statutory deadline and failed to show excusable neglect for her untimely answer. We conclude that the record does not support a finding of excusable neglect or any basis for relief to reopen the default judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals' decision.


I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY


2. This lawsuit originated from a disagreement between the parties over property rights, specifically, a dispute over the use of a road. Both parties in this case owned property on the west side of and adjacent to Birch Lake in Forest County. The plaintiffs' property was located to the north of the defendant's property. The plaintiffs gained access to their property by traveling on a north-south road that ran along the western side of the lake. A section of this road crossed the defendant's property.


3. In the fall of 1997, the defendant asked the plaintiffs to use an alternative route. They refused. The defendant then blocked access to the road.


4. On June 10, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a three-count complaint against the defendant. All three counts were based on alleged violations of their easement rights to the road. The first cause of action alleged that the defendant had intentionally interfered with the plaintiffs' access to the easement road. The plaintiffs sought damages and permanent injunctive relief to prohibit the defendant from interfering with their use of the road. The remaining causes of action alleged (1) conversion or dispossession of property rights and (2) intentional interference with contractual rights. On that same date, the plaintiffs also filed a separate motion for temporary injunctive relief.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the
Court's opinion.

Outcome:
Court of Appeals Affirmed and remanded to the circuit court.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Unknown
Defendant's Experts:
Unknown
Comments:
None

About This Case

What was the outcome of Connor v. Connor?

The outcome was: Court of Appeals Affirmed and remanded to the circuit court.

Which court heard Connor v. Connor?

This case was heard in Supreme Court of Wisconsin, WI. The presiding judge was William A. Bablitch.

Who were the attorneys in Connor v. Connor?

Plaintiff's attorney: Ann E. Stevning-Roe and Juneau, Minder, Gross & Stevning-Roe, S.C., Marshfield, and oral argument by Ann E. Stevning-Roe.. Defendant's attorney: Mark E. Sostarich and Petrie & Stocking S.C., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Mark E. Sostarich..

When was Connor v. Connor decided?

This case was decided on May 18, 2001.