Opinion ID: 2215226
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appears

Text: ¶ 29 The term `appearance' is generally used to signify the overt act by which one against whom a suit has been commenced submits himself to the court's jurisdiction and constitutes the first act of a defendant in court. McLaughlin v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Ry. Co., 23 Wis.2d 592, 594, 127 N.W.2d 813 (1964) (citing Dauphin, 187 Wis. at 636, 205 N.W. 557; 4 Am.Jur.2d Appearance § 1 (2009)). All persons who are parties to an action have a right to appear, either by attorney or in their own person. 2 Wis. Pl. & Pr. Forms § 16:8 (5th ed. 2009) (citing Wis. Const. art. I, § 21(2); SCR 11.02(1)). ¶ 30 There are a number of actions by which one may appear. A party `appears' in an action either formally, by serving and filing a notice of appearance or an answer or by making a motion that serves to extend the time to answer, or informally, by actively litigating the merits of an issue without raising any jurisdictional objection. 4 Am.Jur.2d Appearance § 1 (2009). In City of Fond du Lac v. Kaehne, the court of appeals concluded that a party proceeding pro se in a civil action who sent a letter to the circuit court appeared in the action. 229 Wis.2d 323, 326, 599 N.W.2d 870 (Ct.App.1999); see also L.R.E. v. R.E.J., 168 Wis.2d 209, 216, 483 N.W.2d 588 (Ct.App.1992) (concluding that pleading to the court, albeit by mail, constituted an appearance). ¶ 31 Because it is relevant to the issue of appearance, we take this opportunity to discuss our decision in Kett. First, we note that some of the principles established in Kett are applicable here, but we conclude that Kett's ultimate holding is distinguishable. In Kett, Community Credit Plan improperly venued its replevin actions in Milwaukee County and obtained default judgments against the defendants. Kett, 228 Wis.2d 1, ¶3, 596 N.W.2d 786. Applying Wis. Stat. § 421.401(2), we held that the default judgments were invalid from the time of entry because the actions were commenced in Milwaukee County in violation of § 421.401(1). Id., ¶ 11. Kett's holding is distinguishable because it was not interpreting § 421.401(2) to determine the meaning of appears and waives the improper venue as we are here. Instead, in Kett, we interpreted the phrase the court shall dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, § 421.401(2)(b), which we explained could mean personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction or the competence of a court, Kett, 228 Wis.2d 1, ¶ 21 & n. 12, 596 N.W.2d 786. Further, Kett is not dispositive here because Kett involved default judgments. Id., ¶ 12. A default judgment may be entered when a party fails to plead or otherwise appear in an action. See Wis. Stat. § 806.02(3). Accordingly, such a defendant necessarily could not have fulfilled the appearance requirement of § 421.401(2). However, a default judgment is not at issue here. ¶ 32 To appear and to waive cannot be found in a single act and also provide the customer protection that the legislature sought to achieve. See Wis. Stat. § 421.102(2). For example, if a merchant files an action arising from a consumer credit transaction in an improper venue far from the home of the customer, the customer may write a letter to the judge before whom the action is pending, asking what will occur next. The customer may do so without realizing that venue is improper, without realizing where the action should have been venued and without knowing that he has the right to have the action dismissed due to the improper venue. Were that letter to constitute both an appearance and a waiver, a customer could lose the right to proper venue, together with the right to dismissal of the action, before the customer was aware of those rights.