Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2011/60170.html
Timestamp: 2013-12-13 00:04:00
Document Index: 788412370

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 895', '§ 806', '§ 808', '§ 806', '§ 808', '§ 802', '§ 893', '§ 893', '§ 893', '§ 893', '§ 893']

Evelyn Werner v. Kenneth Hendree - 2011 WI 10 :: 2011 :: Wisconsin Supreme Court Decisions :: Wisconsin Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > Wisconsin Case Law > Wisconsin Supreme Court Decisions > 2011 > Evelyn Werner v. Kenneth Hendree - 2011 WI 10	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
Evelyn Werner v. Kenneth HendreeDownload as PDF
2011 WI 10
2008AP2045 and 2009AP2322 Evelyn Werner, Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, v. Kenneth Hendree and Michael Honeck, Defendants-Respondents. ___________________________________________ Evelyn Werner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth Hendree and Michael Honeck, Defendants-Respondents.
February 16, 2011 October 7, 2010
Circuit Court Waukesha County Kathryn W. Foster
BRADLEY, J. and ABRAHAMSON, C.J. dissent in part (Opinion filed.)
For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs by Andrew J. Shaw and Shaw Law Offices, and Joseph F. Owens, and Arthur & Owens, S.C., and oral argument by Joseph Owens.
John J. Glinski, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general.
2008AP2045 & 2009AP2322
2007CV1212)
STATE OF WISCONSIN Evelyn Werner,
Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, v. Kenneth Hendree and Michael Honeck, Defendants-Respondents.
Evelyn Werner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth Hendree and Michael Honeck, Defendants-Respondents.
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals, and APPEAL from an order of the Circuit Court for Waukesha
County, Kathryn W. Foster, Judge.
Reversed and cause remanded
back to the circuit court with instructions.
¶1 two
ZIEGLER, brief
comprises facts and
procedural history is necessary to explain the posture of our review. ¶2 Eighty-four-year-old Evelyn Werner (Werner) was
physically attacked in her home and had her safe stolen by three assailants, one of whom was Kenneth Hendree (Hendree). had previously as an visited Werner's home by several the times of Hendree while the
Commissioner of Insurance (OCI).
Werner filed suit against both
Hendree and Michael Honeck (Honeck), Hendree's supervisor. ¶3 The Waukesha County Circuit Court, Judge Kathryn W.
Foster presiding, dismissed Werner's complaint against Honeck on the grounds of governmental immunity. the circuit court ruled that At a subsequent hearing, was ineligible for
indemnification from the State under Wis. Stat. § 895.46 (200708).1 For purposes of combining the matters for later appeal,
Werner's counsel requested that the circuit court not sign and file the above two orders until a trial was held and judgment was entered as to Hendree's liability and damages. General, counsel for Honeck, did not voice an The Attorney objection.
Accordingly, on the record, multiple times, the circuit court assured counsel that it would the not sign ruling the and file the order was
dismissing ineligible
Honeck for
Hendree was
resolved as to Hendree.
However, contrary to those assurances
and unbeknownst to the parties, the circuit court prematurely signed the two orders on December 3, 2007, several months before the trial was conducted and judgment was entered against
Hendree.
Once the orders were signed, the clerk of the circuit See Wis. Stat.
court was then obligated to file the orders. § 806.06(2). ¶4
In fact, it was on June 24, 2008, that the circuit
court held a bench trial and determined Hendree's liability and Werner's damages. On July 11, 2008, the circuit court signed Werner filed her notice of appeal
the judgment against Hendree. on August 18, 2008.
Werner appealed from the following: (1) the
order dismissing Honeck on the grounds of governmental immunity, (2) the order ruling that Hendree was ineligible for
indemnification, and (3) the July 11, 2008, judgment against Hendree. ¶5 judgment court orders did for Werner timely appealed from the July 11, 2008, final entered not after trial. to and its However, assurances until because to after hold the the circuit earlier Werner's
notice of appeal was filed more than 90 days after the date on which the order dismissing Hendree was ineligible Honeck for and the order ruling were that
Accordingly, as to those orders, the court of appeals dismissed Werner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Wis. Stat.
§ 808.04(1). ¶6 Werner petitioned this court for review of the court
of appeals' published per curiam decision, Werner v. Hendree, 3
Wis. 2d 592,
N.W.2d 782,
dismissed as untimely her appeal of (1) the order dismissing Honeck and (2) the order ruling that Hendree was ineligible for indemnification. We granted Werner's petition for review, and
the parties presented oral arguments. ¶7 Subsequent to the court of appeals decision, Werner
moved the circuit court to vacate and reenter those two orders pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 806.07(1)(a). Werner's motion. Werner then The circuit court denied the circuit court's
denial of her motion to vacate and reenter the orders to the court of appeals at the time that Werner's first appeal was pending before this court. Consequently, the court of appeals
stayed Werner's second appeal pending our decision in the first appeal. ¶8 Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.612 and Article
VII, Section 3, subsection 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution,3 upon the court's own motion, we removed Werner's second appeal from the court of appeals in the interests of judicial economy.
Thus, we are also reviewing the circuit court's order denying Werner's motion to vacate and reenter the order dismissing
Wisconsin Stat. § (Rule) 809.61 provides that the supreme court may take jurisdiction of an appeal in the court of appeals "upon the supreme court's own motion." Article VII, Section 3, subsection 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution states: "The supreme court may review judgments and orders of the court of appeals, may remove cases from the court of appeals and may accept cases on certification by the court of appeals." 4
Honeck and
the order ruling
indemnification. ¶9 ¶10 Our holding today resolves both appeals. Concerning the order ruling that Hendree was
ineligible for indemnification, we conclude that Werner's appeal survives on two alternative grounds: Werner timely appealed from the order in the first instance because the order was not final, and alternatively, the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it denied Werner's motion to vacate and reenter the order. Concerning the order dismissing Honeck, we conclude
that Werner's appeal survives on the second basis; that is, the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it Our
denied Werner's motion to vacate and reenter the order. analysis is broken down into two parts. ¶11
First, we hold that the court of appeals improperly
dismissed as untimely Werner's appeal of the order ruling that Hendree was ineligible for indemnification, irrespective of the date on which the order was filed. This is so because the order The order did not
was not final under Wis. Stat. § 808.03(1).
dispose of the entire matter in litigation as to either Werner or Hendree,4 and accordingly, was not appealable until July 11, 2008, when the circuit court entered judgment on Hendree's
liability and Werner's damages.
By that point in litigation, Honeck had been dismissed on the grounds of governmental immunity. Furthermore, the State was not a named party and chose not to become a party through intervention or otherwise. 5
¶12 exercised
Second, its
circuit denied
erroneously motion to
vacate and reenter (1) the order dismissing Honeck and (2) the other order ruling that Hendree was ineligible for
The circuit court erroneously concluded that
it was without the power to vacate and reenter the orders given Werner's failure to bring the motion within one year after the orders were filed. ¶13 decision Accordingly, dismissing we reverse both the court and of the appeals circuit
court's order denying Werner's motion to vacate and reenter the orders. We remand to the circuit court with instructions to
vacate and reenter the order dismissing Honeck and the order ruling that Hendree was ineligible for indemnification. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶14 We derive the facts of this case from Werner's As they
complaint and her testimony before the circuit court.5
have been relayed by Werner, the facts of this case are quite unsettling.
Hendree never answered Werner's complaint and has yet to appear in this action. Accordingly, we accept as true Werner's allegations against Hendree. See Wis. Stat. § 802.02(4); Estate of Otto v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis., 2008 WI 78, ¶42, 311 Wis. 2d 84 ("The ordinary rule is that the allegations in a complaint 'are admitted when not denied' in the answer of a defendant against whom the allegations are made. Furthermore, when a defendant is determined to be in default, the factual allegations against the defendant, except those relating to the amount of damages, ordinarily are deemed true." (Internal footnotes omitted.)). 6
Werner, complaint
84-years-old OCI regarding
wheelchair-ridden,6 annuities. October
Beginning in September 2005 and continuing through Hendree, then employed by OCI as an insurance
examiner, visited Werner in her home.
Hendree informed Werner
that he had been assigned by OCI to gather information about her claim. ¶16 Hendree's visits to Werner's home were numerous,
unannounced, and often took place in the evenings and on the weekends. Hendree stayed for hours each visit and asked Werner Trusting of his position
detailed questions about her finances.
with OCI, Werner always let Hendree into her home and answered his questions. ¶17 Throughout this time period, Werner made several
telephone calls to OCI to complain about Hendree's frequent and strange visits. According to Werner, she spoke with Honeck, Werner averred that
Hendree's supervisor, but nothing was done.
no one at OCI ever told her that Hendree was not authorized to visit her after-hours or so frequently. ¶18 Hendree's final visit to Werner's home took place on The
Sunday, October 29, 2006, and lasted for about three hours.
next day, Werner again telephoned OCI and complained to Honeck.
Werner passed away in June 2010 subsequent to this court's decision to grant her petition for review. 7
position at OCI. resignation. ¶20 woman
At the time, Werner was unaware of Hendree's
On the evening of December 13, 2006, two men and one a and gun broke her into safe. Werner's The home, physically hit
Werner on the head with the gun, and one of the other attackers held a pillow over Werner's face. Werner one of never their saw the
faces, but she
voices as
belonging to Hendree. ¶21 Werner's Around the nightshift same time, Victoria arrived Colletti (Colletti), home and
noticed two people getting into a car parked inside Werner's garage. Colletti called out to them, but they did not respond.
A third person then came running out of the house, pointing a gun at Colletti. Colletti got back into her car, backed out of The other
the driveway, and called 911 on her cellular phone.
car followed Colletti's until she arrived at a gas station to meet up with a police officer. ¶22 Werner was transported by ambulance to a hospital,
where she was treated for head injuries. ¶23 To our knowledge, no one has been criminally charged However, during the time-
in connection with Werner's attack.
span of Hendree's visits to Werner's home and unbeknownst to Werner, Hendree had pending criminal charges for stalking and
second-degree sexual assault.7 on July 21, 2005. ¶24
Those criminal charges were filed
On December 28, 2006, the Director of the Bureau of The letter
Market Regulation for OCI sent a letter to Werner. provided, in relevant part:
As I told you in our telephone conversation on December 27, 2006, Mr. Hendree resigned his position effective November 1, 2006 and is no longer a state employee. I have asked Mike Honeck to contact you regarding your questions about your complaint file. Mr. Honeck was Ken Hendree's supervisor and is very familiar with your complaint file. II. PROCEDURAL POSTURE ¶25 On February 2, 2007, Werner served a notice of claim The
on the Attorney General pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 893.82.8
notice of claim specifically named OCI as the agency involved According to court records, that criminal case has since been resolved. It is entirely unrelated to the case now before this court.
Wisconsin Stat. § 893.82(3) provides, in relevant part:
[N]o civil action or civil proceeding may be brought against any state officer, employee or agent for or on account of any act growing out of or committed in the course of the discharge of the officer's, employee's or agent's duties, . . . unless within 120 days of the event causing the injury, damage or death giving rise to the civil action or civil proceeding, the claimant in the action or proceeding serves upon the attorney general written notice of a claim stating the time, date, location and the circumstances of the event giving rise to the claim for the injury, damage or death and the names of persons involved, including the name of the state officer, employee or agent involved. . . . 9
and Hendree as the agent involved.
In her notice of claim,
Werner alleged that Hendree's October 29, 2006, visit to her home gave rise to a cause or of action for In negligent particular, hiring, Werner
claimed that OCI should have suspended Hendree during the time of his pending criminal charges, and had it done so, Hendree never would have come into contact with Werner or targeted her home for robbery. ¶26 On April 30, 2007, Werner filed a complaint against The State was not named as a defendant, and Werner alleged
Hendree and Honeck.
the State chose not to intervene in the lawsuit.
several causes of action against Hendree, including trespass, aiding and abetting assault and battery, theft, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. As to Honeck, Werner alleged
negligent supervision of an employee. ¶27 this Hendree never filed an answer and never appeared in Nonetheless, held a bench as will on be discussed later, the and
action. court
Hendree's
ultimately entered judgment against him. ¶28 The Attorney General appeared on behalf of Honeck and Honeck asserted several affirmative defenses, the complaint failed to state a
including, inter alia, that
claim upon which relief can be granted, Werner failed to comply with Wis. Stat. § 893.82, and Honeck is entitled to
discretionary immunity. ¶29 complaint On June 21, 2007, Honeck filed a motion to dismiss the against him. Honeck 10 argued that Werner failed to
strictly comply with Wis. Stat. § 893.82, namely because the notice of claim did not name Honeck as the agent involved and did not allege any act by Honeck that caused injury to Werner. In addition, Honeck argued that Werner failed to plead, and
further, cannot establish, any exception to the general rule of public officer immunity. ¶30 In her brief in opposition to Honeck's motion to
dismiss, Werner argued that her notice of claim was more than sufficient to give the State meaningful notice and information to investigate her claim. Honeck was not immune In addition, Werner contended that her negligent supervision claim
because Honeck knew that Werner was in a dangerous situation and had no discretion not to act to protect her.9 ¶31 On September 10, 2007, the circuit court held a
hearing on Honeck's motion to dismiss.
At the outset of its
decision, the circuit court acknowledged Hendree's failure to appear and consequently expressed "no difficulty on [its] part in accepting the averment or the contents of the complaint, both the original and the amended[,] that [Werner] was the victim of
On August 1, 2007, Werner filed an amended complaint and specifically pled the "known danger" exception to governmental immunity. See Kierstyn v. Racine Unified Sch. Dist., 228 Wis. 2d 81, 96, 596 N.W.2d 417 (1999) ("[T]he known danger exception is effective only in those cases where the 'nature of the danger is compelling and known to the officer and is of such force that the public officer has no discretion not to act.'" (quoting C.L. v. Olson, 143 Wis. 2d 701, 715, 422 N.W.2d 614 (1988))). On August 29, 2007, Honeck moved the court to dismiss the amended complaint against him, relying on the same arguments made in his original motion to dismiss. 11
[an] egregious crime." least
The court found that Hendree was "at within the scope of his
initially . . . obviously
employment" when he began visiting Werner's home.10 ¶32 On that same date, the circuit court granted Honeck's
motion to dismiss but stated on the record that it would not sign the order until the case was resolved as to Hendree. The
circuit court granted Honeck's motion to dismiss on the grounds that Honeck was protected from liability by governmental
The court reasoned that even assuming Honeck had been
aware of Hendree's pending criminal charges, the circumstances did not impose on Honeck a nondiscretionary duty to act; rather, Honeck had the discretion to choose between alternative courses of action. Moreover, the circuit court concluded that Werner's
notice of claim did not strictly, or even substantially, comply with Wis. Stat. § 893.82 in regards to Honeck. The court found
that the notice of claim referred to Honeck only in passing and did not afford the State an adequate opportunity to investigate Honeck's potential responsibility for Werner's injury. ¶33 At the close of the hearing, Werner's counsel
requested that for purposes of appeal, the circuit court not Later in the hearing, the Attorney General interjected to purportedly contest the issue of whether Hendree was acting within the scope of his employment: Your Honor, may I interject something with respect to Mr. Hendree? We have in our Answer denied that he was within the scope of his employment [with] what he was doing and under the statute, 893 or 895.46 [the] Attorney General does have a right to participate to contest that issue. 12
sign its order dismissing Honeck until Hendree's liability is resolved. After hearing no objection from the Attorney General,
the circuit court stated on the record: "The court will refrain from filing any orders of today's proceeding until we resolve the issue with the matter which pertains to Mr. Hendree." ¶34 On October 10, 2007, because H