2013 WI 49

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2011AP1121

COMPLETE TITLE: Paul Davis Restoration of S.E. Wisconsin, Inc.,

Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner,

v.

Paul Davis Restoration of Northeast Wisconsin,

Defendant-Appellant,

Denmark State Bank,

Garnishee.

REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

Reported at 343 Wis. 2d 678, 819 N.W.2d 562

(Ct. App. – Unpublished)

OPINION FILED: June 4, 2013

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:

ORAL ARGUMENT: March 14, 2013

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: Circuit

COUNTY: Brown

JUDGE: Donald R. Zuidmulder

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED: ROGGENSACK, ZIEGLER, J.J., concur.

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:

For the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner, there were briefs

by Adam A. Bardosy and Sean D. Lanphier, and Mallery &

Zimmerman, S.C., Milwaukee, with oral argument by Adam A.

Bardosy.

For the defendant-appellant, the cause was argued by

Natalie M. Sturicz, with whom on the brief was Robert E. Bellin,

Jr.
2013 WI 49

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further

editing and modification. The final

version will appear in the bound

volume of the official reports.

No. 2011AP1121

(L.C. No. 2010TJ154)

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

Paul Davis Restoration of S.E. Wisconsin, Inc.,

Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner,

v.

Paul Davis Restoration of Northeast Wisconsin,

Defendant-Appellant

and

Denmark State Bank,

Garnishee.

FILED

JUN 4, 2013

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Reversed and

cause remanded.

¶1 N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. This case centers on a

garnishment action in which the alleged judgment debtor

challenged the ability of the judgment creditor to enforce a

judgment by garnishment. The case arises from territory-related

disputes between two franchisees, Paul Davis Restoration of S.E.

Wisconsin, Inc. (Southeast) and Paul Davis Restoration of

Northeast Wisconsin (Northeast). Pursuant to the franchise
No. 2011AP1121

2

agreement, binding arbitration is prescribed to resolve such

disputes, and the results of an arbitration process included an

award for Southeast in the amount of $101,693 against Northeast,

which is the name under which EA Green Bay, LLC, does business.

The problem we now address arose when Southeast sought to

enforce a judgment, via a garnishment action under Wis. Stat.

§ 812.01 (2009-10)

1, for the money damages it had been awarded by

the arbitration panel.

¶2 Following the arbitration, there was no objection to

confirming the award by entry of judgment against Northeast in

circuit court.

2 Nor has there been any dispute that Northeast

1 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to

the 2009-10 version unless otherwise indicated.

2 There was a dispute in proceedings in Milwaukee County

Circuit Court, before the Honorable William S. Pocan, concerning

"the appropriate form of the judgment confirming the award." At

a hearing related to that dispute, Southeast's counsel expressed

concern that a judgment naming only Northeast, EA Green Bay,

LLC's "d/b/a" name, might be unenforceable and sought to have

the judgment entered against Northeast, Matthew Everett and EA

Green Bay, LLC, on the basis that the franchise agreement

contemplated joint and several liability in such a circumstance.

In asking the court to confirm the arbitration award against

Northeast but not also against EA Green Bay, LLC, Northeast's

counsel made the following statement:

[T]his business about all this hypothetical difficulty

that [Southeast] may or may not encounter in enforcing

the judgment is not appropriate in this particular

proceeding, number one. It's not supported by any

evidence, number two. . . . And thirdly, the idea

that as a matter of law an entity operating as a quote

[d/b/a], meaning it's operating under a trade name,

the idea that a judgment can't be enforced against it

is simply untrue as a matter of law.
No. 2011AP1121

3

was the name under which EA Green Bay, LLC, did business.

Nevertheless, EA Green Bay, LLC, opposed the subsequent

garnishment action in circuit court on the grounds that the

judgment, entered against only Northeast, the name under which

it did business, was unenforceable.

¶3 The circuit court for Brown County, the Honorable

Donald R. Zuidmulder presiding, relied on two Wisconsin cases

3

for the proposition that Northeast, the name under which EA

Green Bay, LLC, did business, had "no independent legal

significance apart from the underlying business" and applied

that principle in this context to mean that the names "refer to

the same legal entity." It therefore held that any valid

judgment against Northeast is also enforceable against EA Green

Bay, LLC. The court of appeals reversed. It cited to the same

cases as the circuit court, stating that where a company does

business under a name different from the legal entity's name,

that name is "merely descriptive of" and "not . . . distinct

from" the person or corporation operating the business and is "a

The circuit court, for reasons that cannot be determined on the

record before us, did as Northeast requested and confirmed the

award on August 18, 2010, as to Northeast in the amount of the

arbitration award, $101,693, and entered judgment on September

3, 2010.

3 Jacob v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 203 Wis. 2d 524, 537

n.7, 553 N.W.2d 800 (Ct. App. 1996) (stating that the

designation "'d/b/a' means 'doing business as' and is merely

descriptive of the person or corporation who does business under

some other name; it does not create or constitute an entity

distinct from the person operating the business"); and Binon v.

Great N. Ins. Co., 218 Wis. 2d 26, 35, 580 N.W.2d 370 (Ct. App.

1998) (citing the language from Jacob).
No. 2011AP1121

4

legal nonentity"; it therefore reasoned that a judgment against

such a name is unenforceable and cannot serve as a basis for a

garnishment action.

4

¶4 Wisconsin courts have not directly addressed the

precise question presented: whether an otherwise valid judgment

can be enforced against a legal entity when the judgment is

entered against the name under which the legal entity does

business.

5 The cases relied on by the circuit court and court of

appeals state that when a person or corporation does business

under a name, that name "is merely descriptive of the person or

corporation" and "it does not create or constitute an entity

distinct from the person operating the business." Jacob v. West

Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 203 Wis. 2d 524, 537 n.7, 553 N.W.2d 800

(Ct. App. 1996). In Capsavage v. Esser, 224 Wis. 2d 404, 415,

591 N.W.2d 888 (Ct. App. 1999), which involved a dispute

concerning the type of legal entity involved, the court

clarified that the name under which the company, Sundance

4 Paul Davis Restoration of S.E. Wis., Inc. v. Paul Davis

Restoration of Northeast Wis., No. 2011AP1121, unpublished slip

op., ¶¶7-9 (Wis. Ct. App. June 12, 2012).

5 When deciding a duty-to-defend case that did not present

this question directly, the court of appeals noted, "We are not

required to decide in this case whether the default judgment

against [an entity named in the complaint], a legal nonentity,

is of any enforceable effect against the estate of [its deceased

owner, who was not personally named as a defendant]." Jacob,

203 Wis. 2d at 537 n.7 (emphasis added). In that case, a

separate ruling from a probate court dismissing a related claim

on the basis of the unenforceability of the judgment was not

before the court. Id. at 531.
No. 2011AP1121

5

Marine, was doing business was not "a distinct entity" but

rather was "simply another way to refer to Sundance Marine."

6

¶5 It follows from this principle that if the name under

which a person or corporation does business is "simply another

way to refer to" a single legal entity and constitutes no entity

distinct from the person or corporation who does business, then

a judgment against the "doing business as" or "d/b/a" name is

enforceable against the legal entity from which it is

indistinct. This result is consistent with the approach taken

on this question by the majority of other jurisdictions that

have addressed it. Based on this principle in Wisconsin case

law concerning a d/b/a designation or trade name, and consistent

with the approaches of the majority of other jurisdictions, we

hold that the judgment against EA Green Bay LLC's d/b/a

6 The Capsavage court made note of the fact that Californiabased Sundance Marine had made a fictitious name filing or d/b/a

filing "to do business as SDSR." Capsavage v. Esser, 224 Wis.

2d 404, 415, 591 N.W.2d 888 (Ct. App. 1999).

[T]he purpose of a fictitious name statute is to

protect the public against false identification of the

character of a business by use of certain words in the

name employed by the enterprise, or to ensure that

those who do business with persons operating under a

fictitious name will know the true identities of the

individuals with whom they are dealing or to whom they

are giving credit or becoming bound. . . . By filing

an assumed-name certificate as authorized by statute,

a corporation puts the public on notice that it is

doing business under an assumed name . . . .

18A Am. Jur. 2d Corporations § 237.
No. 2011AP1121

6

designation, Paul Davis Restoration of Northeast Wisconsin, is

enforceable against EA Green Bay, LLC, and the account at

Denmark State Bank; Northeast and EA Green Bay, LLC, are not two

distinct legal entities; and EA Green Bay, LLC, was undisputedly

doing business under the name Northeast. We reverse the

decision of the court of appeals and remand to the circuit court

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

¶6 After the arbitration proceedings described above were

complete and the judgment was entered in Milwaukee County

Circuit Court, Northeast refused to pay the arbitration award.

Southeast commenced the action that is now before us, a separate

and independent garnishment action in Brown County Circuit

Court, to collect the judgment from a Denmark State Bank account

titled in the name of "EA Green Bay LLC d/b/a Paul Davis

Restoration & Remodeling of NE WI d/b/a Building Werks." The

record

7 reflects that the checks on the account bear only the

name "Paul Davis Restoration & Remodeling of NE WI." In its

answer to the garnishment complaint, garnishee defendant Denmark

State Bank stated that "EA Green Bay LLC d/b/a Paul Davis

7 The record we have is the record from the garnishment

action filed in Brown County Circuit Court. The record in this

case does not include the arbitration ruling or any documents

from the arbitration proceedings. It does not contain the

record from the Milwaukee County Circuit Court case confirming

the arbitration award either, though portions of the record in

that case, such as briefs and partial transcripts, have been

included in the garnishment case record as exhibits attached to

filings.
No. 2011AP1121

7

Restoration & Remodeling of NE WI d/b/a Building Werks is a

Denmark State Bank customer.” It also stated that

[a]s of the date and time Denmark State Bank was

served with the Garnishment Summons and Complaint,

Denmark State Bank was indebted to EA Green Bay LLC

d/b/a Paul Davis Restoration & Remodeling of NE WI

d/b/a Building Werks in the full amount of the

. . . garnishment, by virtue of a deposit account.

In its ruling, the circuit court stated, "It cannot be disputed

that EA [Green Bay, LLC] was the principal name on the account

on [the date of the service of the garnishee summons] and that

it was EA [Green Bay, LLC]'s Employer Identification Number."

It also noted that "checks continued to be deposited for Paul

Davis Restoration of Northeast Wisconsin . . . ."

¶7 The Brown County Circuit Court denied Northeast's

motion to dismiss and directed the bank to release the funds in

the account to Southeast. As noted above, the court based the

ruling on the Jacob and Binon cases and on its determination

that "[r]ather than separating the [Northeast] non-entity from

the 'EA Green Bay, LLC' legal entity, the d/b/a designation

simply means that the two names refer to the same legal entity."

It considered EA Green Bay, LLC's arguments an "attempt[] to

create a legal distinction where none exists."

¶8 The court of appeals reversed in an unpublished, per

curiam opinion. It read the Jacob and Binon cases as supporting

the proposition that because a d/b/a designation "does not

create or constitute an entity distinct from the person [or

corporation] operating the business," a judgment against a d/b/a

designee alone is unenforceable. Paul Davis Restoration of S.E.
No. 2011AP1121

8

Wis., Inc. v. Paul Davis Restoration of Northeast Wis., No.

2011AP1121, unpublished slip op., ¶¶7-9 (Wis. Ct. App. June 12,

2012). It drew parallels to the facts discussed in Jacob, in

which the court found that a plaintiff had improperly named a

deceased person, rather than the estate's personal

representative, as a party to the suit. Id. Southeast

petitioned this court for review, which we granted.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW

¶9 The question presented here arises in the context of a

garnishment action, which is governed by Wis. Stat. § 812.01.

The statute states:

Any creditor may proceed against any person who is

indebted to or has any property in his or her

possession or under his or her control belonging to

such creditor's debtor or which is subject to

satisfaction of an obligation described under s.

766.55(2), as prescribed in this subchapter.

"Plaintiff" as used in this subchapter includes a

judgment creditor and "defendant", a judgment debtor

or the spouse or former spouse of a judgment debtor if

the judgment is rendered in connection with an

obligation described under s. 766.55(2).

Wis. Stat. § 812.01(1). Application of a statute to an

undisputed set of facts is a question of law. Nichols v.

Nichols, 162 Wis. 2d 96, 103, 469 N.W.2d 619 (1991).

¶10 We also note that it is well established that a

garnishment action is an action independent of the judgment for

which it seeks to recover payment and is instituted separately

according to statute. See Wis. Stat. § 812.01. See Butler v.

Polk, 592 F.2d 1293, 1295-1296 (5th Cir. 1979) (observing that

"garnishment actions against third-parties are generally
No. 2011AP1121

9

construed as independent suits, at least in relation to the

primary action"); Randolph v. Emp'rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. of

Wis., 260 F.2d 461, 464 (8th Cir. 1958) ("The only issue is the

liability of the garnishee on its insurance contract. . . .

[T]he amount of such liability has been established by the

judgment against [the insured] in the state court action.");

Adriaenssens v. Allstate Ins. Co., 258 F.2d 888, 890 (10th Cir.

1958) (garnishments are "original and independent actions [by]

the holders of the judgments").

¶11 Noting, in the context of a garnishment case, that

"[t]he judgment carries the presumption of validity," this court

cited the settled law on judgments:

The general rule is stated in 49 C.J.S.

Judgments . . . as follows: "A judgment rendered by a

court having jurisdiction of the parties and the

subject matter, unless reversed or annulled in some

proper proceeding, is not open to contradiction or

impeachment, in respect of its validity, verity, or

binding effect, by parties or privies, in any

collateral action or proceeding, except . . . for

fraud in its procurement."

Zrimsek v. Am. Auto. Ins. Co., 8 Wis. 2d 1, 3, 98 N.W.2d 383

(1959). Where a judgment debtor asserts claims about a

judgment's legitimacy, "it is in the context of that [first]

suit and not [in the garnishment suit] that those claims should

[be] asserted." Schultz v. Sykes, 2001 WI App 260, ¶16, 248

Wis. 2d 791, 638 N.W.2d 76. Further, "[t]he fact that the

judgment is contested materially affects the nature of mistakes
No. 2011AP1121

10

that might be complained of and the considerations involved in

determining whether relief is warranted. . . . An application

for relief after a contested proceeding [as distinct from a

default judgment] therefore partakes of a petition for

reconsideration, and all the reasons for finality of judgment

are arrayed against such an application." Restatement (Second)

of Judgments § 71 cmt. a (1982). We also note that "a valid and

final award by arbitration has the same effects under the rules

of res judicata, subject to the same exceptions and

qualifications, as a judgment of a court." Restatement (Second)

of Judgments § 84(1). "If the arbitration award were not

treated as the equivalent of a judicial adjudication for

purposes of claim preclusion, the obligation to arbitrate would

be practically illusory." Id., § 84 cmt. b. The following

provisions appear in Wis. Stat. ch. 788, which governs

arbitration. After an award is made, any party has one year in

which it "may apply to the court . . . for an order confirming

the award, and thereupon the court must grant such an order

. . . ." Wis. Stat. § 788.09. "Upon the granting of an order

confirming, modifying or correcting an award, judgment may be

entered in conformity therewith in the court wherein the order

was granted." Wis. Stat. § 788.12.

III. DISCUSSION
No. 2011AP1121

11

¶12 In this case, the application of the garnishment

statute requires us to determine whether the holder of the

Denmark State Bank account, "EA Green Bay, LLC d/b/a Paul Davis

Restoration & Remodeling of NE WI d/b/a Building Werks," is the

debtor against whom the judgment was entered.

¶13 The question, as the circuit court correctly

identified it, is whether "the underlying judgment against Paul

Davis Restoration of Northeast Wisconsin can apply to [the legal

entity, EA Green Bay, LLC]" so that the assets in the bank

account belonging to EA Green Bay, LLC, are subject to

garnishment in satisfaction of the judgment. To answer that

question, we need to examine principles related to a legal

entity such as a corporation or a person doing business as or

under a name different from the corporation’s or person’s name.

In doing so, we examine Wisconsin case law and also consider how

other jurisdictions have approached the issue.

¶14 First, we consider what Wisconsin courts have said

about the names under which a legal entity such as a corporation

or person does business.

8 The parties, as noted previously, rely

8 In this case we discuss use of a d/b/a designation or

trade name interchangeably. Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.

2009) states that "d/b/a" is the abbreviation for "doing

business as"; the definition continues:

[Usually] precedes a person's or business's assumed

name <Paul Smith d/b/a Paul's Dry Cleaners>. It
No. 2011AP1121

12

on the same cases yet reach opposite conclusions about how the

stated principle applies in the context of an action under the

garnishment statute.

¶15 The three cases that mention the principle or rule of

law that we consider here——that a d/b/a designation "is merely

descriptive of the person or corporation who does business under

some other name; it does not create or constitute an entity

distinct from the person operating the business"——are Jacob,

Binon and Capsavage. In each of these cases, the brief

discussion about the "doing business as" name appears to be

secondary to the legal question being decided in the case, and

none of these cases directly addresses an action under the

garnishment statute.

¶16 The first, Jacob, was a case concerning construction

defects and a contractor's insurer's duty to defend, and the

signals that the business may be licensed or

incorporated under a different name. Cf. tradename.

Black's Law Dictionary defines "tradename" this way:

A name, style, or symbol used to distinguish a

company, partnership, or business (as opposed to a

product or service); the name under which a business

operates. A tradename is a means of identifying a

business — or its products or services — to establish

goodwill. It symbolizes the business's reputation. Cf.

brand; d/b/a; trademark.

Black's Law Dictionary 455 (9th ed. 2009) (emphasis added).
No. 2011AP1121

13

court of appeals made the observation about the d/b/a

designation in a footnote in which the court commented on a

tactical decision by a subcontractor's attorney not to answer

the complaint. Jacob, 203 Wis. 2d at 537 n.7. The case to

which the Jacob footnote cited, Duval v. Midwest Auto City,

Inc., 425 F. Supp. 1381, 1387 (D. Neb. 1977), aff'd, 578 F.2d

721 (8th Cir. 1978), was an odometer-tampering case, and the

plaintiffs had listed six defendants in the amended complaint,

including two d/b/a designations. Though there is no indication

that it was a contested issue in the case, the court stated:

Under the evidence there are four entities only –

Midwest Auto City, Inc., David Studna, Ervin Delp, and

Bernard Flaherty. The designation "d/b/a" means "doing

business as" but is merely descriptive of the person

or corporation who does business under some other

name. Doing business under another name does not

create an entity distinct from the person operating

the business. The individual who does business as a

sole proprietor under one or several names remains one

person, personally liable for all his obligations. So

also with a corporation which uses more than one name.

Id. (Emphasis added.)

¶17 The second case, Binon, concerned whether a policyholder was a motor vehicle handler for purposes of a statute

giving such entities permission to restrict coverage. The

policy was issued to "Arrow Motors, Inc., d/b/a Lease Associates

Group." Binon v. Great N. Ins. Co., 218 Wis. 2d 26, 35, 580

N.W.2d 370 (Ct. App. 1998). Plaintiffs had argued that the

d/b/a designation of "Lease Associates Group" was not a motor

vehicle handler, even if Arrow Motors was. The court of appeals

quoted the Jacob court as the basis for treating the d/b/a
No. 2011AP1121

14

designation as an entity that was not distinct from Arrow

Motors, Inc. In determining whether the restricted coverage was

permitted under the statute in that case, the court "look[ed] to

all the activities and services of the insured . . . and not

merely the activities of its leasing division . . . , which has

no independent legal status or significance." Id.

¶18 A third Wisconsin case in which a company's "doing

business as" name is discussed is Capsavage. The Capsavages

were seeking to hold a shareholder of a corporation personally

liable for a breach of contract by the corporation after they

paid $291,987 for a yacht that was never delivered. Capsavage,

224 Wis. 2d at 407-409. The contract was with Sundance Marine

d/b/a San Diego Sea Ray (SDSR). Id. at 407. The Capsavages

sought to argue that SDSR was actually a joint venture or a

partnership and that the shareholder was personally liable for

the contract as a participant in the partnership. Id. at 414-

415. The court of appeals rejected the argument, noting that "a

fictitious name filing was made for Sundance Marine to do

business as SDSR." Id. at 415. The court added, "When a

corporation does business under another name, it does not create

a distinct entity. Rather, SDSR [the d/b/a designation] is

simply another way to refer to Sundance Marine." Id.

¶19 Northeast and Southeast both rely on the principle

cited in the above cases that the name under which a person or

corporation does business is not a "distinct entity." Northeast

argues that that means that such a name is not an entity against

which a judgment can be enforced. It analogizes the situation
No. 2011AP1121

15

to cases in which a party has failed to identify and serve the

proper party,

9 citing Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 2011 WI App

5, 331 Wis. 2d 51, 794 N.W.2d 475, aff'd, 2012 WI 31, 339 Wis.

2d 493, 811 N.W.2d 756 (holding that a court had no personal

jurisdiction over defendant when there was a fundamental defect

in a summons and complaint that named, rather than the intended

defendant, the similarly named parent corporation of the

intended defendant). Southeast argues that the "not a distinct

entity" language means that a judgment against the name under

which a company does business is simply a judgment against the

legal entity from which the "doing business as" name is legally

indistinct.

10

¶20 The principle or rule of law stated in these cases——

that the name under which a person or corporation does business

9 We note, as did the circuit court, that there is no

"evidence calling into question whether any other business

operated as Paul Davis Restoration of Northeast Wisconsin and

had [the same address], as is indicated on the Milwaukee County

judgment." Nor is there any allegation or evidence of lack of

notice or improper service in this case.

10 The parties also make arguments concerning judicial

estoppel and a collateral attack against a judgment. Because we

resolve this case on the grounds that the judgment can be

validly enforced against the account held by Denmark State Bank,

we do not address the parties' other arguments. Northeast

additionally argues that the money in the Denmark State Bank

account in question cannot be reached under the garnishment

statute because it "does not belong to [Northeast]" but belongs

to EA Green Bay, LLC, instead. This argument merely restates

the question we address concerning the nature of the

relationship between a legal entity and the name under which it

does business; therefore, there is no need to address that

argument separately.
No. 2011AP1121

16

is indistinct from the underlying legal entity——is more

logically consistent with the circuit court's approach. The

circuit court held that "the two names refer to the same legal

entity." The court of appeals' approach implicitly treated the

name as a distinct but legally meaningless entity.

¶21 A case concerning a judgment against a name under

which a legal entity is doing business is very different from

the category of cases involving a plaintiff's failure to

identify and serve the proper party. Such cases turn on a

different question (i.e., which of several distinct legal

entities is the proper defendant) and, more importantly, involve

different considerations, such as notice. See Mared Indus.,

Inc. v. Mansfield, 2005 WI 5, ¶¶34, 38, 277 Wis. 2d 350, 690

N.W.2d 835 (discussing the "policy of ensuring that a defendant

receives notice of an action" and acknowledging that "the

consequences for failing to strictly comply with the statutory

rules of service are harsh"); Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2,

2012 WI 31, ¶24, 339 Wis. 2d 493, 811 N.W.2d 756 ("Indeed,

notice that apprises a party of the pendency of an action

against it and affords the opportunity to present objections is

regarded as '[a]n elementary and fundamental requirement of due

process.'"). As the court specifically noted in Cintas Corp.

No. 2,

Unlike the single corporation in Hoesley, which the

plaintiff correctly sued but simply misnamed as "La

Crosse VFW Chapter, Thomas Rooney Post," see 46 Wis.2d

at 502, 175 N.W.2d 214, Cintas and Cintas No. 2 are

two, distinct legal entities, and Johnson mistakenly

sued the first instead of the second.
No. 2011AP1121

17

Cintas Corp. No. 2, 339 Wis. 2d 493, ¶41 (emphasis added). The

court further stated that the plaintiff did not dispute "that

his summons and complaint named the wrong party . . . and that

the party he intended to sue . . . is an independent legal

entity." Id., ¶42 (emphasis added). Although it is relied upon

by Northeast, Cintas Corp. No. 2 does not support its argument

in this garnishment action.

¶22 The majority of courts from other jurisdictions

confronted with similar cases in which a judgment debtor

challenges the enforceability of a judgment against an entity

using a name under which an entity does business have reached

the same conclusion we reach in this case. See Acad. of IRM v.

LVI Envtl. Serv., Inc., 687 A.2d 669, 677 (Md. 1997) (holding

that "notice that an order for default had been entered against

Trade Name was notice to Debtor that an order for default had

been entered against it, since Trade Name was simply another

name by which Debtor was known"); Aman Collection Serv., Inc. v.

Burgess, 612 S.W.2d 405, 408-409 (Mo. App. 1981) (holding that a

judgment solely against a d/b/a designation may be enforced

against the entity operating under the trade name on the grounds

that "the trial court committed no error in finding that Dako

Products Co. was merely a trade name under which Robert V.

Burgess operated and that they were one and the same");

Toulousaine de Distribution et de Services v. Tri-State Seed and

Grain, 520 N.W.2d 210, 215 (Neb. Ct. App. 1994) (stating that

"[t]he law from other jurisdictions also indicates that doing

business under another name or several names does not create an
No. 2011AP1121

18

entity separate and distinct from the person operating the

business, and the person remains personally liable for all his

or her obligations," and holding that where evidence is that a

sole proprietor is doing business under a trade name and a

judgment is obtained against the trade name, the judgment

creditor may execute the registered judgment); Beneficial Fin.

Co. of Colo. v. Bach, 665 P.2d 1034, 1037 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983)

(in a garnishment action, affirming a trial court's finding that

where an entity on a lease was a trade name for a corporation,

the corporation was liable under the lease, and noting that "a

valid judgment against Compass Real Estate, Limited, must also

be premised upon the fact that Realty World Senti, the named

defendant and judgment debtor, is the trade name of that

corporation"); Becker v. Truitt, 154 S.E. 262, 263 (Ga. 1930)

(holding that "[a] judgment rendered against a person in his

assumed or trade name is not void"); Long v. Carolina Baking

Co., 3 S.E.2d 46, 50 (S.C. 1939) (where a corporation was doing

business under a trade name, a "verdict and judgment against

[the trade name] is binding upon the existent corporate entity

and its assets" and judgment against a trade name "would not

invalidate the judgment, where . . . the corporate defendant has

suffered no prejudice"); Bishop v. Wilson Quality Homes, 986

P.2d 512, 514 (Okla. 1999) (where plaintiff sought to amend a

Workers' Compensation judgment against a d/b/a designation to

add the legal entity to which it was attached, court held that

plaintiff "may collect his judgment against [the d/b/a

designation] as he would from any business whose judgment was
No. 2011AP1121

19

pronounced as a result of trial in district court" and "does not

need a nunc pro tunc order inserting [the legal entity's name]

into the original award"); and Hughes v. Cox, 601 So. 2d 465,

471 (Ala. 1992) ("[W]e affirmatively hold that a judgment

entered against a trade name is a judgment against the

individual doing business under that trade name, at least so

long as the individual was personally served with the

complaint.").

¶23 The Louisiana courts have, based on an interpretation

of a Louisiana statute, held that a "doing business as" name is

not a separate legal entity against which a judgment can be

entered

11 but mitigated the consequences for a plaintiff by

employing an "equitable remedy the Louisiana Supreme Court

crafted" in such cases: while they have held that a judgment

entered against a legal nonentity cannot stand, the courts have

granted plaintiffs a remand for a new trial and instructions to

the trial court that the plaintiff be allowed leave to amend the

petition to name the proper party defendant. Assensoh v.

Diamond Nails, 897 So. 2d 806, 812 (La. App. 2005); Walker v.

Self-Serv. Storage and Mini Warehouses, Inc., 519 So. 2d 771

(La. 1988).

11 "Underlying this line of jurisprudence is the principle

codified in La. C.C.P. art. 736 that a trade name is not a

separate legal entity capable of being sued." Assensoh v.

Diamond Nails, 897 So. 2d 806, 810 (La. Ct. App. 2005).
No. 2011AP1121

20

¶24 In light of the principle that the name under which a

legal entity does business "does not create or constitute an

entity distinct from the person operating the business," "is

merely descriptive of the person or corporation who does

business under some other name," and "is simply another way to

refer" to the legal entity, we find no basis for holding that a

judgment against such a name, indistinct from the legal entity

to which it is attached, cannot be enforced against that entity.

Nothing in Wisconsin law precludes our conclusion, and the case

law from the majority of other jurisdictions provides ample

support for it.

¶25 As noted above, the question presented in this

garnishment action is whether, under Wis. Stat. § 812.01, the

money in the Denmark State Bank is "property . . . belonging to

[the] creditor’s debtor." Northeast, the name under which EA

Green Bay, LLC, does business, is not an entity distinct from EA

Green Bay, LLC. The account at Denmark State Bank is in the

name of "EA Green Bay LLC d/b/a Paul Davis Restoration &

Remodeling of NE WI d/b/a Building Werks." The account is

"property . . . belonging to such creditor's debtor or which is

subject to satisfaction of an obligation . . . ." in an action

under Wis. Stat. § 812.01, and therefore can be used to satisfy

the judgment granted which confirmed the arbitration award.

IV. CONCLUSION

¶26 Wisconsin courts have not directly addressed the

precise question presented: whether an otherwise valid judgment

can be enforced against a legal entity when the judgment is
No. 2011AP1121

21

entered against the name under which the legal entity does

business. The cases relied on by the circuit court and court of

appeals state that when a person or corporation does business

under a name, that name "is merely descriptive of the person or

corporation" and "it does not create or constitute an entity

distinct from the person operating the business." Jacob, 203

Wis. 2d at 537 n.7. In Capsavage, which involved a dispute

concerning the type of legal entity involved, the court

clarified that the name under which the company, Sundance

Marine, was doing business was not "a distinct entity" but

rather was "simply another way to refer to Sundance Marine."

¶27 It follows from this principle that if the name under

which a person or corporation does business is "simply another

way to refer to" a single legal entity and constitutes no entity

distinct from the person or corporation who does business, then

a judgment against the "doing business as" name is enforceable

against the legal entity from which it is indistinct. This

result is consistent with the approach taken on this question by

the majority of other jurisdictions that have addressed it.

Based on this principle in Wisconsin case law concerning a d/b/a

designation or trade name, and consistent with the approaches of

the majority of other jurisdictions, we hold that the judgment

against EA Green Bay, LLC's d/b/a designation, Paul Davis

Restoration of Northeast Wisconsin, is enforceable against EA

Green Bay, LLC, and the account at Denmark State Bank; Northeast

and Green Bay, LLC, are not two distinct legal entities; and EA

Green Bay, LLC, was undisputedly doing business under the name
No. 2011AP1121

22

Northeast. We reverse the decision of the court of appeals and

remand to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent

with this opinion.

By the Court.— Reversed and cause remanded.
No. 11AP1121.pdr

1

¶28 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J. (concurring). The

majority opinion concludes that the judgment in favor of Paul

Davis Restoration of Southeast Wisconsin, Inc. (Southeast),

entered as the confirmation of an arbitration award against Paul

Davis Restoration of Northeast Wisconsin (Northeast) (which is a

"doing business as" (d/b/a) designation employed by EA Green

Bay, LLC), is enforceable in a garnishment action against an

account at Denmark State Bank that is held in the name of EA

Green Bay, Northeast and other d/b/a's of EA Green Bay.

1 I

agree.

¶29 Prior to entering the judgment confirming the

arbitration award, Southeast's counsel requested that the court

name EA Green Bay as a defendant in the judgment because

Northeast was a d/b/a designation for EA Green Bay and not a

separate legal entity. In response, counsel for Northeast

represented to the court that a judgment solely in the name of

Northeast was fully enforceable, even though "Paul Davis

Restoration of Northeast Wisconsin" was not a legal entity.

Northeast now asserts that the judgment is not enforceable

because, although Northeast's name was on the bank account to be

garnished, Northeast is not a legal entity and therefore has no

legal ownership in the bank account.

1 Majority op., ¶5.
No. 11AP1121.pdr

2

¶30 Because of Northeast's prior inconsistent

representations to the circuit court, which the circuit court

apparently accepted, I conclude that Northeast is judicially

estopped from challenging the garnishment on the ground that the

judgment is not enforceable because Northeast is not a legal

entity. Accordingly, I respectfully concur with the majority

opinion's reversal of the decision of the court of appeals,

albeit on a different rationale.

I. BACKGROUND

¶31 Both Southeast and EA Green Bay are franchisees of

Paul Davis Restoration, Inc. EA Green Bay operated its

franchise under the name of Northeast. Northeast is not a

corporate entity, but rather it is a trade name, or "d/b/a," of

EA Green Bay.

¶32 Southeast and Northeast entered into arbitration for

claims that each franchisee was doing business in the exclusive

territory of the other and therefore each owed certain payments

to the other. The arbitration panel agreed that both

franchisees had been selling in the other's exclusive territory,

but that Northeast had done so much more frequently. The panel

issued a net award that required Northeast to pay Southeast

$101,693.10.

¶33 Southeast's counsel moved the circuit court of

Milwaukee County to confirm the award. During that process

counsel for Southeast sought to have EA Green Bay and others

added as defendants. Southeast's counsel said,

[If the court] confirms the award in such a manner

that it is only against . . . Paul Davis Restoration
No. 11AP1121.pdr

3

of Northeast Wisconsin, I'm not even sure how to go

about collecting against a company operating as a

trade name. How do you separate the company's trade

name from the underlying entity? And not just any

underlying entity, but the underlying entity that's

required to be there under the franchise

agreement. . . . The only way to give [e]ffect to the

award in this case is to make it against . . . the

underlying entities. To do otherwise would tie the

hands of the party who received the award in this case

from enforcing any judgment. Because I'm not sure

how——I'm sure that you can't own property under a

DBA. . . . Without that, we'll have a judgment that I

believe would be worthless.

¶34 In response, Northeast's counsel urged the circuit

court to reject Southeast’s argument and refuse to add EA Green

Bay to the judgment:

First of all, the fact that someone operates under——an

entity operates under a trade name does not mean that

it is not also a business entity of its own. That

doesn't follow as a matter of law. Secondly,

regardless of that, a business operating under a trade

name certainly can own all sorts of assets. And—— And

thirdly, the idea that as a matter of law an entity

operating as a quote DBA, meaning it's operating under

a trade name, the idea that a judgment can't be

enforced against it is simply untrue as matter of law.

After considering the arguments of counsel, the circuit court

issued a judgment against Northeast and not against EA Green

Bay, consistent with Northeast's contention.

¶35 When the garnishment action from which this review

springs was filed in Brown County Circuit Court, it named only

Northeast as the debtor and Denmark State Bank as the garnishee.

The bank responded that it had an account in the name of EA
No. 11AP1121.pdr

4

Green Bay LLC d/b/a Paul Davis Restoration & Remodeling of NE WI

2

d/b/a Building Werks. The Bank said that on the date that it

received the garnishment, the account had a balance of

$102,772.87, which the Bank would hold until further order of

the court.

¶36 Northeast objected to release of the funds and a

hearing on its objection was held before the circuit court of

Brown County. At the conclusion of that hearing, the circuit

court found that

[Northeast] has had ample opportunity to make some

kind of showing that EA [Green Bay] is not in fact the

same entity as is named in the Milwaukee County

judgment as a defense to garnishment, and yet the

record is devoid of any evidence that the owner of the

account and the judgment debtor are two different

business entities.

Thereafter, the circuit court concluded that the bank account

was properly subject to Southeast's garnishment action.

¶37 The court of appeals reversed, concluding that because

Northeast is a d/b/a and not a legal entity, the judgment

against Northeast is unenforceable against the bank account.

Paul Davis Restoration of S.E. Wis., Inc. v. Paul Davis

Restoration of Ne. Wis., No. 2011AP1121, unpublished slip op.,

¶9 (Wis. Ct. App. June 12, 2012).

¶38 Before us, Northeast again contends that a judgment

against a trade name is unenforceable. Northeast agrees that

2 No one has argued that the slight difference in the names

of Paul Davis Restoration of Northeast Wisconsin and Paul Davis

Restoration & Remodeling of NE WI is significant or that both do

not refer to the same d/b/a for EA Green Bay, so I do not

consider it further.
No. 11AP1121.pdr

5

Southeast attempted to convince the Milwaukee County Circuit

Court to add EA Green Bay as a debtor and that the circuit court

did not do so. At oral argument, Chief Justice Abrahamson asked

counsel for Northeast whether a predecessor attorney had

represented to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court that EA Green

Bay was bound by the judgment even without being named. Counsel

admitted that that had happened, but asserted that it was an

erroneous statement to the court, which she characterized as a

mistake insufficient to support judicial estoppel.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

¶39 Whether judicial estoppel applies presents a question

of law for our independent review. State v. Petty, 201 Wis. 2d

337, 346-47, 548 N.W.2d 817 (1996).

B. Principles of Judicial Estoppel

¶40 Statements of law upon which a circuit court relies

may give rise to the equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel.

Under that doctrine, a party is precluded from asserting a

position in litigation after having previously asserted an

inconsistent position at a different stage in the litigation, or

in another proceeding. See State v. Ryan, 2012 WI 16, ¶¶32–34,

338 Wis. 2d 695, 809 N.W.2d 37 (discussing elements and

application of judicial estoppel in two separate, but factually

interrelated proceedings).

¶41 Judicial estoppel is intended to protect the integrity

of the judicial process against parties playing "fast and loose

with the courts by asserting inconsistent positions." Petty,
No. 11AP1121.pdr

6

201 Wis. 2d at 347 (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). The doctrine, therefore, does not operate on the

relationship between the parties, but instead operates on the

relationship between each party and the judicial system. See

id. at 346 (noting that "judicial estoppel is not directed to

the relationship between the parties").

¶42 As with other equitable doctrines, the application of

judicial estoppel is typically within the discretion of the

circuit court. State v. Fleming, 181 Wis.2d 546, 558, 510

N.W.2d 837 (Ct. App. 1993). However, because the elements of

judicial estoppel are questions of law, a circuit court's

failure to address the doctrine will not preclude an appellate

court from doing so. See Petty, 201 Wis. 2d at 346–47

(recognizing propriety of appellate court addressing judicial

estoppel where doctrine had not been applied by circuit court).

¶43 For a party to be judicially estopped from maintaining

a particular position in litigation, three elements must be met.

Id. at 348. First, the party's position must be "clearly

inconsistent" with an earlier position. Id. Second, the facts

relevant to the party's position must have been the same at both

points in litigation. Id. Third, the party to be judicially

estopped "must have convinced the first court to adopt its

position." Id. Additionally, because judicial estoppel "looks

toward cold manipulation and not unthinking or confused

blunder," the doctrine will not be applied to inadvertent

representations. Id. at 347.
No. 11AP1121.pdr

7

C. Application

¶44 Northeast's representations to the Milwaukee County

Circuit Court meet the three criteria necessary for judicial

estoppel. Therefore, I conclude that Northeast is estopped from

contending that the judgment upon which the garnishment is based

may not be enforced because Northeast is not a legal entity.

First, the facts relevant to whether Northeast was a legal

entity did not change between the hearing before the Milwaukee

County Circuit Court and the commencement of this garnishment

action. During the relevant time period, Northeast remained a

d/b/a or trade name of EA Green Bay.

¶45 Second, Northeast represented to the Milwaukee County

circuit court that EA Green Bay's use of the d/b/a designation

would not prevent enforcement of the judgment. Counsel for

Northeast said, "the idea that a judgment can't be enforced

against it is simply untrue as a matter of law." Northeast's

contention was made to the court when Southeast moved to add EA

Green Bay as a party to the judgment and argued that EA Green

Bay must be added in order to prevent the judgment from being

unenforceable. Southeast said that without a legal entity as a

party to the judgment, "we'll have a judgment that I believe

would be worthless." After consideration of the arguments of

counsel, the circuit court denied Southeast's request to add EA

Green Bay as a party to the judgment.

¶46 Third, as repeated more fully in the quote in

paragraph 7 above, Northeast's legal position was carefully

stated and urged the circuit court not to name EA Green Bay as a
No. 11AP1121.pdr

8

party to the judgment. Northeast's contention was not

inadvertently made but was placed before the court in direct

response to Southeast's position that without the addition of EA

Green Bay, Southeast would have a judgment that was "worthless."

Before us, Northeast attempts to make the judgment worthless in

this garnishment action.

¶47 Accordingly, Northeast's position before us meets all

the elements for judicial estoppel. Therefore, I conclude that

Northeast is estopped from asserting that its bank account

cannot be garnished based on Northeast not having the legal

status that would permit it to have ownership rights in the

account.

III. CONCLUSION

¶48 Because of Northeast's prior inconsistent

representations to the circuit court, which the circuit court

apparently accepted, I conclude that Northeast is judicially

estopped from challenging the garnishment on the ground that the

judgment is not enforceable because Northeast is not a legal

entity. Accordingly, I respectfully concur with the majority

opinion's reversal of the decision of the court of appeals,

albeit on a different rationale.

¶49 I am authorized to state that Justice ANNETTE

KINGSLAND ZIEGLER joins this concurrence.
No. 11AP1121.pdr

1