Title: Steven Burnett v. Claude Hill

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
94-2011 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
Steven Burnett,   
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner,  
 
 
 
 
v.  
 
 
 
Claude Hill, d/b/a Sportsman's Lounge and  
 
 
 
ABC Insurance Company, a fictitious  
 
 
 
insurance company,   
 
 
 
 
Defendants-Respondents.  
 
 
 
_____________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
 
Reported at:  199 Wis. 2d 163, 544 N.W.2d 580 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Ct. App. 1996) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PUBLISHED 
  
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
January 24, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
November 14, 1996 
Oral Argument:  
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Milwaukee 
 
JUDGE:  
WILLIAM J. HAESE 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS:  
For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner there were 
briefs by James W. McCann and Eisenberg, Weigel, Carlson, Blau, 
Reitz & Clemens, S.C., Milwaukee and oral argument by James W. 
McCann. 
 
 
For the defendants-respondents there was a brief and oral 
argument by William W. Graper, Milwaukee. 
 
94-2011 
 
1
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing 
and modification.  The final version will 
appear in the bound volume of the official 
reports. 
 
 
No. 94-2011 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
STEVEN BURNETT, 
 
  
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-PETITIONER, 
 
 
v. 
 
CLAUDE HILL, d/b/a SPORTSMAN'S LOUNGE, AND 
ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, a fictitious 
insurance company, 
 
 
DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 24, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed and 
remanded with directions to vacate the order of dismissal. 
 
¶1 
JANINE P. GESKE, J.    Plaintiff Steven Burnett 
("Burnett"), seeks review of a published decision of the court of 
appeals affirming an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee 
County, William J. Haese, judge.  The order dismissed Burnett's 
cause of action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the 
Defendant, Claude Hill, d/b/a Sportsman's Lounge, and ABC 
Insurance Company (hereinafter "Hill").
1  The court of appeals 
held that Burnett's failure to authenticate the summons he served 
by publication was a fundamental error depriving the circuit 
court of personal jurisdiction over Hill. Although Burnett did 
not strictly comply with the statutory service requirements of 
                     
1  Burnett v. Hill, 199 Wis. 2d 163, 544 N.W.2d 580 (Ct. App. 
1996). 
94-2011 
 
2
§ 801.02(3)(a)(1993-94),
2 we conclude that the defect is not 
fundamental and did not prejudice Hill.   We therefore reverse 
the decision of the court of appeals, vacate the order of 
dismissal 
and 
remand 
to 
the 
circuit 
court 
for 
further 
proceedings. 
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY  
¶2 
The procedural facts are not in dispute.  Burnett filed 
an action for damages for personal injuries arising out of the 
alleged negligence of Hill.  A summons and complaint against Hill 
were filed with the Milwaukee County Clerk of Courts on October 
5, 1993 on behalf of Burnett.  Both the summons and the complaint 
were authenticated with a file stamp and date-stamped.
3  Service 
was attempted on Hill six times, at both his last known residence 
and at his place of business, but to no avail.  Burnett attempted 
to have Hill personally served on November 9, 1993, November 14, 
1993, November 22, 1993, November 27, 1993, December 2, 1993, and 
December 4, 1993.  In the course of those unsuccessful service 
efforts, Burnett published the summons for three successive weeks 
in The Daily Reporter, a public newspaper of general circulation, 
printed and published daily in the City of Milwaukee.  The 
newspaper published the summons on November 30, 1993, December 7, 
1993 and December 14, 1993.  The summons as published included 
the case number assigned by the clerk of courts for Milwaukee 
County. 
                     
2  All future references are to the 1993-94 volume unless 
otherwise indicated. 
3  Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 801.09(4), authentication is 
accomplished when the clerk of courts places a file stamp that 
indicates the case number on each copy of the summons and 
complaint. 
94-2011 
 
3
¶3 
Before or concurrent with the November 30, 1993 
publication 
of 
the 
first 
summons 
under 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 801.11(1)(c),
4 Burnett mailed an unauthenticated copy of the 
publication summons and authenticated copies of the original 
summons and complaint to Hill's last known residence address and 
business address by certified and first class mail.
5  Hill 
acknowledged the receipt of those documents by signature on 
                     
4  Wis. Stat. § 801.11  provides: 
 
Personal jurisdiction, manner of serving summons for.  
A court of this state having jurisdiction of the 
subject matter and grounds for personal jurisdiction as 
provided 
in 
s. 
801.05 
may 
exercise 
personal 
jurisdiction over a defendant by service of a summons 
as follows: 
 
(1) Natural person.  Except as provided in sub. (2) 
upon a natural person: 
 
(a) By personally serving the summons upon the 
defendant                      either within or without 
this state. 
(b) If with reasonable diligence the defendant cannot 
be served under par. (1), then by leaving a copy of the 
summons at the defendant’s usual place of abode; 
. . .  
  (c) If with reasonable diligence the defendant cannot 
be served under par. (a) or (b), service may be made by 
publication of the summons as a class 3 notice, under 
ch. 985, and by mailing.  If the defendant’s post-
office address is known or can with reasonable 
diligence be ascertained, there shall be mailed to the 
defendant, at or immediately prior to the first 
publication, a copy of the summons and a copy of the 
complaint.  The mailing may be omitted if the post-
office address cannot be ascertained with reasonable 
diligence. 
 
5  The record before us does not contain an affidavit of mailing 
affirming that these three documents were mailed to Hill on or 
about November 30, 1993.  Burnett makes this assertion in his 
brief, Petitioner's brief at 3, and Hill has not disputed the 
fact of mailing before any of the courts considering this 
matter.  See Respondent's brief at 4. Similarly, the record does 
not contain any evidence of Hill's signed receipt of these three 
documents, but Hill has not disputed such receipt.  In fact, 
Hill's counsel attached a copy of the unauthenticated typed 
publication summons to his Notice of Motion and Motion to 
Dismiss, filed on April 26, 1994.  Record at 7:11.  Thus, we 
accept these uncontested factual assertions as true. 
94-2011 
 
4
December 1, 1993.  The typed copy of the publication summons 
mailed to Hill did not contain the case number assigned by the 
clerk of courts.  
 
¶4 
Hill's counsel filed a Notice of Retainer and Answer on 
December 7, 1993.  In his answer, Hill asserted lack of personal 
jurisdiction as an affirmative defense.  Consequently, on April 
26, 1994, Hill filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, pursuant 
to Wis. Stat. § 802.06(2), for lack of personal jurisdiction.
6  
At the hearing on that motion, the circuit court determined that 
the manner of service was defective, and thus the court had no 
personal jurisdiction over Hill.  The circuit court dismissed the 
complaint, with prejudice, by order for judgment dated June 23, 
1994.  Burnett moved for reconsideration of the dismissal order 
on July 6, 1994.  The court denied that motion.  Burnett then 
appealed from both the judgment of June 23, 1994 and the order of 
July 11, 1994 denying his motion for reconsideration.
7  
 
¶5 
The court of appeals affirmed the order of the circuit 
court on January 9, 1996.  199 Wis. 2d 163, 544 N.W.2d 580 (Ct. 
App. 1996).  The appellate court agreed that the failure to 
authenticate the summons served by publication was a fundamental 
                     
6  There is no indication in the record before us that any 
written or oral discovery was taken by the parties.  Nor does it 
appear that Burnett filed a written response to Hill's motion 
prior to his counsel's appearance at the May 31, 1994 hearing on 
the motion to dismiss. 
7  Burnett's notice of appeal, filed August 3, 1994, purports to 
appeal  "from the whole of the Judgments entered on the 31st day 
of May, 1994, and July 11, 1994 . . . wherein the Court granted 
defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed plaintiff's 
complaint against said defendant."  However, there is no 
judgment or order in the record before us reflecting the circuit 
court's denial of Burnett's motion for reconsideration.  The 
parties have only provided us with a copy of the July 11, 1994 
transcript from the motion for reconsideration hearing. 
Nevertheless, Hill does not challenge Burnett's basis to appeal 
from the judgment entered on June 23, 1994, before 
reconsideration was denied. 
94-2011 
 
5
error that deprived the lower court of personal jurisdiction over 
Hill.  199 Wis. 2d at 171-73.  In so ruling, the court of appeals 
also relied on the reasoning in American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. 
Royal Ins. Co. of America, 167 Wis. 2d 524, 481 N.W.2d 629 
(1992), that where there is a failure to comply with Wis. Stat. 
§ 801.02(1), that failure "constitutes a fundamental error which 
necessarily precludes personal jurisdiction regardless of the 
presence or absence of prejudice."  199 Wis. 2d at 168-69 (citing 
167 Wis. 2d at 534).  The court of appeals recognized that 
American Family and other cases cited by the parties dealt only 
with personal service of a summons, but proceeded to apply the 
same rule to this instance of service by publication.
8   We 
granted Burnett's petition for review on March 12, 1996. 
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
 
¶6 
The question before us is whether the typed publication 
summons must be authenticated before it is mailed along with 
authenticated copies of the original summons and complaint, in 
order to confer personal jurisdiction on the circuit court.  
                     
8  The court of appeals also relied on Hafern v. Davis, 10 Wis. 
443 [*501], 445, [*502-03](1860), which held that where an 
affidavit serving as the basis for an order for publication of 
summons was defective, the trial court did not have personal 
jurisdiction over the defendant.  199 Wis. 2d at 171.  In 
Hafern, the court determined that certain allegations of fact 
required by the code of civil procedure then in effect, were 
missing from the affidavit for publication. 10 Wis. at 445 
[*502-03].  The insufficiencies included a failure to state that 
the defendant departed from the state with intent to defraud his 
creditors or to avoid service, or that he ever resided in the 
state.  Id.  The affidavit also included statements made on 
information and belief, contradicting the existing rule 
requiring the best evidence available.  Id. at 446 [*504}.  The 
affidavit was further flawed for failing to include the names of 
informants.  Id. at 447 [*504]. 
We do not find the Hafern decision helpful to our analysis here. 
 The decision predates the fundamental/technical error analysis 
invoked by the American Family court.  American Family Mut. Ins. 
Co. v. Royal Ins. Co. of America, 167 Wis. 2d 524, 481 N.W.2d 
629 (1992).  
94-2011 
 
6
Determining what constitutes service by publication under Wis. 
Stat. § 801.11 involves statutory interpretation.  See Gaddis v. 
LaCrosse Products, Inc., 198 Wis. 2d 396, 401, 542 N.W.2d 454 
(1996) (determining the required contents of a summons under Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 809.09(3) 
involves 
statutory 
interpretation).  
Determining what constitutes "authentication" under Wis. Stat. 
§ 801.02 also involves statutory interpretation. American Family, 
167 Wis.2d at 529.  These are questions of law that we review 
independently of the lower courts.  Gaddis, 198 Wis. 2d at 401.  
When we interpret a statute, we first look to the language of the 
statute itself.  Kellner v. Christian, 197 Wis.2d 183, 190, 539 
N.W.2d 685 (1995).  If the meaning of a statute is clear, we will 
not look outside the statute to ascertain its meaning.  Id.  
Instead, we will simply apply the plain meaning of the statute to 
the facts before us.  Id.  The complainant has the burden to 
prove that there was no defect in the summons, or if there was a 
defect, that it was technical and not fundamental, and did not 
prejudice the defendant.  American Family, 167 Wis. 2d at 533. 
 
¶7 
Our statutes provide that if a complainant is unable to 
achieve personal service of a summons on a defendant after 
reasonable diligence, service by publication is permitted.
9  
                     
9  Wis. Stat. § 801.02 provides: 
 
Commencement of an action. (1) A civil action in which 
a personal judgment is sought is commenced as to any 
defendant when a summons and a complaint naming the 
person as defendant are filed with the court, provided 
service of an authenticated copy of the summons and of 
the complaint is made upon the defendant under this 
chapter within 60 days after filing. 
. . . 
 
(3) The original summons and complaint shall be filed 
together.  The authenticated copies shall be served 
together except:  
94-2011 
 
7
There is no assertion here that Burnett did not properly file and 
authenticate the original summons and complaint, pursuant to Wis. 
Stat. § 801.02(1)and 801.02(3).  Nor is there any dispute that 
Burnett made several attempts to personally serve defendant Hill 
with the authenticated summons and complaint, pursuant to those 
same statutory provisions.  The issue here is whether, once 
Burnett deemed that his efforts at personal service were 
unavailing, he effectively served Hill by successfully mailing an 
unauthenticated publication summons together with authenticated 
copies 
of 
the 
original 
summons 
and 
complaint. 
Sections 801.02(3)(a) 
and 801.11(1)(c), 
Wis. 
Stats., 
govern 
service of summonses by publication. 
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 
¶8 
Burnett argues that the court of appeals' decision 
should be reversed for two reasons.  First, he contends that Wis. 
Stat. §§ 801.02(3)(a) and 801.11(1)(c) do not require that the 
publication summons be mailed.  Rather, Burnett reads the 
statutes to require only that the original authenticated summons 
and complaint be mailed. 
¶9 
Secondly, Burnett argues that if the legislature had 
required that an authenticated copy of the publication summons be 
mailed to respondent in addition to mailing authenticated copies 
                                                                  
 
(a) In actions in which a personal judgment is sought, 
if the summons is served by publication, only the 
summons need be published, but a copy of the complaint 
shall be mailed with a copy of the summons as required 
by s. 801.11, and;. . . 
 
(4) No service shall be made under sub. (3) until the 
action has been commenced in accordance with sub. (1) 
or (2). 
 
 
 
94-2011 
 
8
of the summons and complaint, the statute would clearly state as 
much.  Burnett asserts that Wis. Stat. § 801.09(4) does not 
require authentication by the clerk of court when a complainant 
prepares to undertake service by publication.
10 
¶10 Hill responds to Burnett's argument by relying on 
American Family.  Hill asserts that a failure to authenticate the 
publication summons is a fundamental defect which deprives the 
circuit court of personal jurisdiction.  First, Hill contends 
that it follows from Wis. Stat. § 801.02(3)(a) and Wis. Stat. 
§ 801.09 that the publication summons must be authenticated.  
Hill 
reasons 
that 
because 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 801.09 
makes 
no 
distinction between the manner of service and the need for 
authentication, the requirement for authentication of the summons 
applies to whichever manner of service is ultimately used.  Hill 
also relies on a court of appeals decision, Studelska v. 
Avercamp, which ruled that if a person is served with an 
unauthenticated copy of the summons, that service was improper.  
178 Wis. 2d 457, 464-465, 504 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1993). 
¶11 We agree with Hill that the plain language of Wis. 
Stat. § 801.02(3)(a) requires that a publication summons be 
authenticated before publication and mailing.  In addition, Wis. 
Stat. § 801.11(1)(c) requires that "service may be made by 
publication of the summons as a class 3 notice, under ch. 985, 
and by mailing.  If the defendant's post office address is known, 
                     
10  Wis. Stat. § 801.09(4) provides: 
Summons, contents of. There may be as many authenticated 
copies of the summons and complaint issued to the plaintiff 
or counsel as are needed for the purpose of effecting 
service on the defendant.  Authentication shall be 
accomplished by the clerk's placing a filing stamp 
indicating the case number on each copy of the summons and 
the complaint. 
94-2011 
 
9
. . . there shall be mailed to the defendant, at or immediately 
prior to the first publication, a copy of the summons and a copy 
of the complaint."  As with Wis. Stat. § 801.02(3)(a), we 
interpret the plain meaning of that provision to require that the 
publication summons published and mailed to the defendant be 
authenticated.  
¶12 We further agree with Hill, and Burnett virtually 
concedes, that Burnett did not comply with the authentication 
requirement.  His failure to authenticate the publication summons 
constituted a defect in service.  Our task then becomes one of 
determining whether the defect is a "fundamental error" that 
deprives the circuit court of personal jurisdiction over the 
defendant, or if the defect is merely a "technical error."  
Whether a defect is fundamental or technical is a question of law 
that we review without deference to the lower courts.  Dungan v. 
County of Pierce, 170 Wis.2d 89, 93, 486 N.W.2d 77 (Ct. App. 
1992) (citing American Family, 167 Wis.2d at 529).  If the error 
is merely technical, we look to see whether the complainant has 
established that the defendant was not prejudiced by such error. 
 Gaddis, 198 Wis. 2d at 401-02. 
FUNDAMENTAL ERROR 
¶13 We considered the nature of defects in the form and 
service of summons and complaints in American Family, 167 Wis. 2d 
at 532-33.  There we discerned two series of cases analyzing 
whether such defects are fatal to personal jurisdiction.  One 
line of cases stressed strict statutory compliance and the other 
made room for non-prejudicial technical errors.  Id. at 530.  
After reviewing those cases, we were unable to reconcile the two 
analytical approaches, but ultimately favored the logic of 
94-2011 
 
10
distinguishing between "fundamental" and "technical" errors.  Id. 
at 533. 
¶14 In American Family, we said that "fundamental errors" 
are those where there is a failure to meet the burden set out in 
Wis. Stat. § 801.02(1).  Id. at 533.  In other words, it is a 
fundamental error when the complainant fails to file a summons 
and complaint naming the defendant, when the copy served upon the 
defendant is not authenticated, or when the service of the 
authenticated copy of the summons and complaint is not made 
within 60 days after filing.  Id. at 533-34; see also DNR v. 
Walworth County Bd. of Adjustment, 170 Wis. 2d 406, 417-18, 489 
N.W.2d 631 (Ct. App. 1992).  Further, we held that compliance 
with the statute, and not "substantial compliance," is the proper 
test.  American Family at 534.  Thus we concluded there that the 
complainant had squarely failed to meet its burden under Wis. 
Stat. § 801.02(1) when it failed to give the clerk of courts the 
opportunity to authenticate a photocopy of the authenticated  
summons and complaint.  Id. at 535. 
¶15 Citing to American Family, the court of appeals later 
agreed that failing to personally serve a defendant with an 
authenticated copy of the summons was a "fundamental error."  
Studelska v. Avercamp, 178 Wis. 2d 457, 460, 465, 504 N.W.2d 125 
(Ct. App. 1993).  However, whether service of an unauthenticated 
summons was a fundamental error was not the question before the 
Studelska court, because the plaintiffs there had conceded 
fundamental error.  Id. at 460.  Rather, the question was whether 
such an error can be waived if not properly raised by defendant 
in a motion or pleading.  Id.  Thus, Studelska does not assist in 
our analysis of whether the alleged defect here was fundamental. 
94-2011 
 
11
¶16 When interpreting a statute prescribing the manner of 
service, we keep in mind the purpose of the statute and the type 
of action to which the statute relates.  Big Valley Farms, Inc. 
v. Public Service Corp., 66 Wis. 2d 620, 623, 225 N.W.2d 488 
(1975).  The purpose of a summons is to provide notice to the 
defendant(s) and to confer personal jurisdiction on the circuit 
court.  American Family, 167 Wis. 2d at 530.  The purpose of 
authentication is to provide assurance to those served with the 
summons that the copies served are true copies of documents filed 
with the court, and to provide a case number for future 
proceedings in the matter.  Id.  In other words, when a defendant 
is served with a summons, the authentication on the face of the 
summons indicates that the summons is backed up by a complaint 
duly filed with the clerk of court. 
¶17 The defective service in American Family arose when a 
defendant insurance company personally served another defendant 
insurance 
company 
with 
unauthenticated 
photocopies of the 
plaintiff's authenticated summons and complaint and the insurance 
defendant's cross-claim.  In all, the defendant in the cross-
claim received three unauthenticated copies of pleadings, and no 
authenticated copies of either the summons, complaint or cross-
claim. 167 Wis. 2d at 527-28.  We held in American Family that 
the error was fundamental because the manner of service did not 
comply with the clear requirements of Wis. Stat. § 801.02(1). 
¶18 However, at least one appellate court has said that 
strict compliance with the statutory form of the summons is not 
required, at least when the statute does not specify the form of 
the summons when the action is commenced by a pro se litigant.  
Dungan, 170 Wis. 2d at 97.  Further, the court of appeals has 
94-2011 
 
12
also said that if the summons clearly informs the defendant that 
it is intended for him or her and that it requires an answer to 
the complaint, the notice requirement is satisfied.  Bulik v. 
Arrow Realty, Inc. of Racine, 148 Wis. 2d 441, 444, 434 N.W.2d 
853 (Ct. App. 1988). 
¶19 More recently we have said that a summons is a form 
document which simply gives notice to the defendant that an 
action has been commenced against him or her.  Gaddis v. LaCrosse 
Products, Inc. 198 Wis. 2d 396, 405.  There we reviewed the 
legislative history of Wis. Stat. § 801.09(3) and concluded that 
the purpose of a summons does not go beyond mere notice.  Id. at 
406. 
¶20 In Gaddis, we considered whether an unsigned summons,
11 
accompanied by a signed complaint, constituted a fundamental 
defect depriving the circuit court of personal jurisdiction over 
the defendant.   Id. at 399.  We considered the purpose of the 
signature requirement of Wis. Stat. § 802.05, and deemed that 
such purpose was fulfilled where a signed complaint was served 
along with the summons.  Id. at 405.  Thus, we concluded that the 
defect was merely technical, and accepted the defendant company's 
concession that it was not prejudiced by receipt of an unsigned 
summons.  We therefore reversed the order of dismissal.  Id. at 
408. 
¶21 The court of appeals decision in this case was filed 
ten days before we rendered our decision in Gaddis.  We conclude 
that the analysis in Gaddis, focusing as it does on  the purpose 
                     
11  There was no dispute in Gaddis as to the manner of service.  
Because the summons and complaint were served together, Gaddis 
v. LaCrosse Products, Inc., 198 Wis. 2d 396, 399, 542 N.W.2d 454 
(1996), we can assume that service there was other than by 
publication. 
94-2011 
 
13
of the statute, informs our decision here. Thus, we conclude that 
Burnett's mailing of an unauthenticated copy of the publication 
summons along with authenticated copies of the original summons 
and complaint, although not in strict compliance, fulfilled the 
purpose of Wis. Stat. §§ 801.02(3)(a) and 801.11(1)(c).  Such 
service was not a fundamental error. 
¶22 Because the defect here is only a technical error, we 
consider whether Burnett has established a lack of prejudice to 
Hill. 
PREJUDICE 
¶23 As a preliminary matter, Hill argues that an additional 
basis exists for affirming the order of dismissal.  He contends 
that Burnett failed to meet his burden of proof under American 
Family to establish that Hill was not prejudiced by the technical 
defect.  Hill first asserts that Burnett's failure to respond in 
writing to Hill's motion to dismiss constituted a waiver of 
Burnett's right to respond to that motion under the Local Rule 
364.
12  Second, Hill contends that because Burnett made no showing 
of lack of prejudice at either the May 31, 1994 hearing on the 
motion to dismiss, or at the July 11, 1994 motion for 
reconsideration, such failure to meet a burden of proof is, by 
default, prejudicial to Hill. 
¶24 We disagree.  Nowhere does Local Rule 364 address 
waiver of a right to respond if the non-movant does not file a 
written response to the motion.  Nor do our statutes command that 
                     
12  Local Rule 364 of the Rules for the First Judicial District, 
State of Wisconsin (Nov. 11, 1996), states in pertinent part: 
364.  SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL MOTIONS 
(b) A respondent shall have 15 days from the receipt of the 
movant's motion within which to serve and file an opposing 
brief or supporting documents.   
94-2011 
 
14
a right of response is waived if the non-movant responds in 
person before the court, but submits no written response prior to 
the hearing.  See Wis. Stat. §§ 802.06(4), 801.08(1).  Hill does 
not assert that Burnett failed to respond at all to his motion 
for dismissal, as Burnett's counsel appeared at the May 31, 1994 
motion hearing and argued to the court that the manner of service 
here conferred personal jurisdiction on the circuit court.  
Burnett's conduct did not constitute a waiver of his right to 
respond to Hill's motion. 
¶25 We must 
decide 
whether 
Burnett has 
sufficiently 
established a lack of prejudice to Hill.  In determining whether 
a technical error has prejudiced a defendant, we bear in mind the 
legislature's instruction that we disregard a defect which does 
not affect the substantial rights of the party asserting error.  
Wis. Stat. § 805.18.
13  See also Gaddis, 198 Wis. 2d at 407.  We 
have declined to find prejudice in a case factually similar to 
the case now before us.  Schlumpf v. Yellick, 94 Wis. 2d 504, 288 
N.W.2d 834 (1980).  There, the original summons and complaint 
were stamped with one file number, but the amended summons and 
complaint had a different case number typed on them.  Some 
misfiling at the clerk of courts office resulted, but the error 
was later corrected by the circuit court.  94 Wis.2d at 510.  We 
ruled that the misfiling did not prejudice the defendants because 
they had acquired all of the information necessary to timely 
respond to the complaint.  Id.  Thus we held that the wrong 
                     
13  Wis. Stat. § 805.18(1) provides: 
The court shall, in every stage of an action, disregard any 
error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings which shall 
not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party. 
94-2011 
 
15
filing number on the amended summons and complaint did not 
operate to preclude commencement of the action.  Id. at 511.  
¶26 In an early case involving service by publication, this 
court ruled that the receipt of a summons and complaint by mail 
to a non-resident defendant constituted service for the purpose 
of determining when the suit had commenced. Diedrichs v. 
Stronach, 9 Wis. 500 [*548], 501 [*549] (1859).  There, the 
plaintiff had attempted service by publication.  The order of 
publication of summons had been made and publication had 
commenced, but had not been completed at the time the defendant 
received the pleadings in the mail.  While not applying a 
prejudice analysis per se, the court concluded that because the 
defendant appeared in the suit after receipt of the summons and 
complaint in the mail, and before the time for publication had 
lapsed, service was deemed effective at the time of receipt.  Id.  
 
¶27 In neither the Diedrichs nor the Schlumpf case were the 
substantial rights of the defendant affected by the technical 
error in service.  Nor is a substantial right of Hill affected by 
the technical failure of Burnett to serve Hill with an 
authenticated publication summons.  By virtue of receiving the 
authenticated copies of the summons and complaint and the 
unauthenticated copy of the publication summons simultaneously, 
Hill acquired all of the information necessary for him to timely 
respond to Burnett's complaint. Hill's attorney appeared in the 
suit after his receipt of the summons and complaint by mail, and 
before publication ceased. 
 
¶28 In this case, we hold that, as a matter of law, Hill 
was not prejudiced by Burnett's unsuccessful attempt under Wis. 
Stat. §§ 801.02(3)(a) and 801.11(1)(c).  Burnett mailed to Hill 
94-2011 
 
16
authenticated copies of the summons and complaint at the same 
time he mailed an unauthenticated copy of the publication 
summons.  The summons actually published in the newspaper bore 
the case number.  Thus, three of the four documents served on 
Hill contained the case number designated by the clerk of court 
for Milwaukee County.  Each of the four documents informed him 
that Burnett had filed an action against him, and that a response 
was required of Hill.   
 
¶29 While we hold here that Burnett's actions did not 
technically 
comply 
with 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§§ 801.02(3)(a) 
and 
801.11(1)(c), we take this opportunity to continue to urge 
attorneys practicing in Wisconsin to follow the statutorily 
prescribed procedures for service of a summons and complaint.  We 
warned in Howard v. Preston, 30 Wis. 2d 663, 669, 142 N.W.2d 178, 
182 (1965), that "[s]lipshod and haphazard attempts to serve are 
not sufficient."  Burnett's manner of service here, while not 
good practice, fulfilled the purpose of notice and was sufficient 
to confer personal jurisdiction on the circuit court. 
   
By the Court.The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed and the cause remanded with directions to vacate the 
order of dismissal.