We, therefore, conclude that the statutory provisions for notice time required for motions do not limit the trial court's ability to schedule a motion so long as each party has a fair opportunity to prepare and be heard. Second, even if the statutory notice requirements applied to a court scheduling a motion hearing, Schopper received adequate notice. The record discloses that the court sent Schopper a notice of hearing on July 11 and on the same day notice of the motion to dismiss of the Outagamie corporation counsel was mailed to Schopper. The notices sent on July 11 scheduling a hearing on July 25 gave Schopper more than the statutory required five-day notice. Even if we were to disregard the July 11 notice of the corporation counsel, the July 19 notice would be sufficient.
Trial courts have discretion to shorten the five-day notice requirement.
The trial court's exercise of discretion will be upheld unless there was no reasonable basis for the trial court's decision. Wisconsin Public Serv. Here, the trial court reasonably determined that Schopper had adequate notice of the hearing, because the trial court had given Schopper fourteen-day notice that a hearing would be held. This is a sufficient basis for the court to waive the five-day notice requirement and is a reasonable exercise of the trial court's discretion. We note that the trial court converted the motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment.