morning your honour's new please the court there's two issues on appeal in this case first is the entry of default judgment against the defendants who i represent as well as the courts refusal to set aside the entry  default in this case regarding the entry of the faults of its defense position that default judgment should not have been injured in this case because it was it which was based on an order for service by publication however if you look at the  order for service of publication that was based upon one service attempt at an address in somerset wisconsin however at the time that the plaintiff sought the order for service by publication plaintiff was aware of an address in california for the defendants and the evidence of this is there is a complaint that the plaintiff had filed in an action in tennessee just eight months prior to filing this action where he alleged that the defendant's home address was in california similarly the corporation defendants their corporate registration paperwork goes back to the address in california however when the plaintiff sought the order for publication service by publication there was no mention of the atterson california there had been no attempts to serve at the address in california there was merely one attempt at service at the address in somerset wisconsin now the wisconsin statutes governing personal service emphasize the importance of reasonable exercising reasonable diligence in attempting personal service there is a preference for personal service and if personal service is not able to be accomplished under eight a one point one one subsection b provides that provides that if with reasonable diligence the defendant cannot be served under paragraph a or paragraph b which is personal service and a competent family member then service may be made by publication now wisconsin supreme court and the court of appeals in wisconsin has further clarified what constitutes reasonable telecasts wisconsin supreme court has explained that a litigant must quote exhaust with due diligence any leads or information recently calculated to make personal service possible that is west versus west eighty two wisconsin second one fifty eight one suspects one sixty six furthermore was trying to make personal service was unable to do so however the and that was they were trying in wisconsin and they saw an order for publication however the litigant was aware that the person who was trying to get be served i was in hawaii and had information to that effect however they made no efforts to attempt a personal service in hawaii under those circumstances the court of appeals found that  the litigants had not exercised reasonable diligence in trying to serve the defendant who would have both the property in wisconsin and the projects and an advertising and other things that seem to  there's a lot of presence in the house and it's in california was closed up with the house of the house in california as his primary residence and it's also the residence listed on the corporate registrations and that's where mr monti has and his family with primarily and it turns out they also it only in a trust owns the property in somerset and they visit that occasionally particularly if they use it for their rented out for weddings and that type of thing and his wife operates a catering business there to assist with weddings and parties at that they have children yes where they go to school that i do not record doesn't reflect attendance in wisconsin schools i don't believe  because he was aware of the california address and never acted upon it before simply reaching out to try and get a service order for service by publication and this conduct should not entitle him to be able to attain a motion for obtain a default judgment based on that such an order second issue your honor is the refusal to set aside the default standards are well established in rule fifty five see good cause for the default which action to correct it and emeritus defense of the complaint this court has explained in the new numerous cases that the standard should be liberally applied in the context of setting aside a default as opposed to a default judgment in order to reach the merits of the case now issues the second and third elements are really not at issue there was quick action to correct the default once the defendants were aware of the situation was they were aware of a lawsuit and there are meritorious defenses to the complaint many of the corporate defendants that are named have nothing to do with the provision of auto dial issue that had anything to do with auto dial phone called merely merely on servers that were rented out to others mostly mostly like municipalities when they need to send out emergency for alerts here the district court focussed found that there was no good cause based on one phone call between mr montas and a sheriff's deputy however the court focused exclusively on that phone call to refute and mr montas refusal to give his own address however the district court in parsing through the facts failed to give any benefit of the doubt regarding the substance of what occurred failed to give the benefit of the doubt to mr montecito pretty those facts the defendant received here the defendant had received an unsolicited want distance call that he thought was confusing and question if it was really coming from some kind a person with authority i mean at the time and still there had been no personal service of a lawsuit he had no knowledge of a lawsuit and it appeared that if you look at the certificate of no service filed on behalf of the officer even officer may have been confused because he was on the certificate of no service he listed that he was trying to serve an amended complaint which was not there's no amended complaint in this case under these circumstances mr montas should be given ok for rent right now yeah right now you are ok how long is that then at least the last two three years there's reviews and comments left by people who have visited the house great great state thanks thanks for stopping by and it's a whole house it's not a room it's not it is regularly in wisconsin so it's not a stretch to think that wisconsin probably a good spot looking at the bank statement your honor i want month by month at transactions that you have to be physically present a t m withdrawals check deposits cosco gas station restaurants all in and around discounts one issue i pointed out was a musical instrument rental and mr motss has an amateur photography hobby these pictures of his kids all over the internet minnesota two thousand miles away to rent a musical instrument there's not a place in colorado where you can bring musical instruments or new mexico or utah or anywhere in between california and that's it that's the first place he went was in a state neighboring wisconsin to  so based on all this the bank records the money never buys around or follow the money at all they said working follow the money the money never buys you have to be physically present standing tall in front of an a t m to do what's wrong it lists the location of the state m number everything and month by month for over a year there is continuous transactions in and around the wisconsin area so on that basis i concluded eight he's probably running the house on california b he probably everything i see he tells the state of florida seventeen thirty one fiftieth street somerset wisconsin for his address and the corporation to address he said before the case he says it after the case that he lives in wisconsin that's what he said that's what's would be and he was there that's what the district court determined he admitted that he was in wisconsin during the time of the publication so i'm not sure there's a great argument for saying that he wasn't served humane i didn't serve the way he wanted to be but he was served to be a service at that point one might expect there would be an evidentiary hearing to find out what's the truth i i can't find one and i can't find any findings of fact by the district judge to determine after an look that where that was mentioned was after an ex parte presentation just by you the question i'm asking is did the district judge ever hold a hearing after  i think the answer is you know a written order is not a hearing this is telephone is telephone here your honor with the with the parties both parties myself and the defense and there was no mention of i think the other big thing is the hunt me down comment which indicates that monticello knew he was evading serve again the the problem is that that is a unilateral assertion by you and normally in the judicial process we decide things after both sides submit that   arguments for and as far as the motions of side are on that was that was correctly would as well again it's all based on the finding of evading service and there is no there's no contest to that new challenge that by the we briefly address a couple of issues first there was some statements made in the appellate argument that in the previous previous case he tried to serve in california that i think he's referring to one of his tennessee cases that in that case and the tennessee court found that he had not made any attempts of personal service at the california address he had sent a few pieces of certified mailings which came back but they're there to the california address however they're at but no attempts at personal service in california and in the tennessee case and similarly here of a there was no what towns at any kind of service in california in the wisconsin case and moreover none of nothing with regards to the california address was ever disclosed to the wisconsin court mr cunningham secondly with regards to the issue of abating service the defendants vehemently challenge the concept that they agree that what they were the dating service think that was a natural issue that is really just schol and go to shell out what if the confusing nature of the events surrounding this one conversation with the sheriff's deputies were that he could easily have been mistaken about the entire