Case Title: John R. Ammerman v. Paddy A. Hauden

Citation: 2005 WI 79

Docket Number: 2003AP002249

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
2005 WI 79 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2003AP2249 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
John R. Ammerman, Robert L. Klein and  
Brian G. Sumption,  
          Plaintiffs, 
 
ROI Investments,  
          Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
     v. 
Paddy A. Hauden and Susan A. Scholl,  
          Defendants-Respondents- 
          Cross Petitioners. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at:  276 Wis. 2d 309, 686 N.W.2d 455 
(Ct. App. 2004-Unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 17, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 26, 2005   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Dane   
 
JUDGE: 
Stuart A. Schwartz   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ROGGENSACK, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by 
George B. Strother, IV, Kristin J. Sederholm and Krekeler 
Strother, S.C., Madison, and oral argument by George B. 
Strother. 
 
For the defendants-respondents-cross petitioners there were 
briefs by Andrew W. Erlandson and Hurley, Burish & Milliken, 
S.C., Madison, and oral argument by Andrew W. Erlandson. 
 
 
2005 WI 79
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2003AP2249  
(L.C. No. 
1999CV1060) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
John R. Ammerman, Robert L. Klein and Brian G. 
Sumption, 
 
          Plaintiffs, 
 
ROI Investments, 
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Paddy A. Hauden and Susan A. Scholl, 
 
          Defendants-Respondents-Cross  
 
          Petitioners. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 17, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Dismissed.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We dismiss the petition and cross-
petition for review as improvidently granted.   
¶2 
Plaintiff, 
ROI 
Investments, 
petitioned, 
and 
defendants, Paddy Hauden and Susan Scholl, cross-petitioned this 
court for review of an unpublished decision of the court of 
appeals which affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit 
No. 
2003AP2249   
 
2 
 
court's judgment of $303,523.15 on counterclaims related to a 
failed real estate transaction.   
¶3 
The following issues were presented by the petition 
and cross-petition: 
1. 
Did the circuit court properly award default 
judgment against the plaintiff, a partnership, 
because the partnership did not appear at trial 
with counsel even though two of the three 
partners appeared individually? 
2. 
Did the circuit court properly award defendants 
damages based on loss-of-bargain? 
3. 
Were 
defendants 
entitled 
to 
pre-judgment 
interest? 
¶4 
We accepted review primarily to address the issue of 
what constitutes an appearance in partnership law.  After 
examination of the record and the briefs of the parties, and 
after hearing oral argument, we conclude that the record does 
not adequately present the principal question for which we took 
the case.  Rather, the record demonstrates that the partners 
present at trial did not object to the numerous statements made 
by the circuit court indicating that there was no appearance on 
behalf of the partnership.  Therefore, a default judgment was 
properly entered.   
¶5 
Accordingly, we determine that review in this case was 
improvidently granted, and we dismiss the petition and cross-
petition for review.   
By the Court.—Review of the decision of the court of 
appeals is dismissed. 
No. 
2003AP2249   
 
3 
 
¶6 
PATIENCE 
DRAKE 
ROGGENSACK, 
J. 
withdrew 
from 
participation. 
 
 
 
 
No. 
2003AP2249   
 
 
 
1