Opinion ID: 1873671
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Larry's position

Text: ¶ 30 Larry advances two arguments in her opposition to the circuit court's vacation of the default judgment. First, although Larry acknowledges that the court's grant of default judgment was interlocutory rather than final, Larry maintains that the default judgment amounted to a finding that Rutherford was liable, entitling Larry to damages. Larry contends that she was entitled to rely on the court's order unless Rutherford appeared later and showed good cause or excusable neglect for failing to answer Larry's complaint. Second, Larry argues that the affirmative defense of qualified immunity that the circuit court ascribed to Rutherford is insufficient to qualify as an extraordinary circumstance required for relief from judgment under Wis. Stat. § 806.07(1)(h). Accordingly, Larry contends that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by vacating a default judgment entered against a defendant who had not appeared and who had made no showing that extraordinary circumstances caused his failure to answer Larry's complaint. Neither argument is availing. ¶ 31 Larry's first argument is inherently contradictory. Because, as Larry concedes, the circuit court's order was interlocutory, Larry has no basis on which to claim that she was entitled to rely on the order of default judgment as one that would remain undisturbed unless Rutherford appeared to contest it. An interlocutory order may remain in doubt until judgment is final. See Maxcy v. Simonson, 130 Wis. 650, 658, 110 N.W. 803 (1907). For many years, Wisconsin law has defined an interlocutory order as one in which the substantial rights of the parties involved in the action remain undetermined and [on occasion] when the cause is retained for further action. Pasch v. DOR, 58 Wis.2d 346, 354, 206 N.W.2d 157 (1973). ¶ 32 Larry next argues that the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is insufficient to support relief from a default judgment under Wis. Stat. § 806.07(1)(h). Larry contends that, in the absence of any of the circumstances listed in subparts (a) through (f) of § 806.07(1) that permit relief to be granted, the circumstances here are not sufficiently extraordinary to permit Rutherford relief under subpart (h) alone. Larry asserts that State ex rel. M.L.B. v. D.G.H., 122 Wis.2d 536, 363 N.W.2d 419 (1985), requires courts reviewing decisions under subpart (h) to first determine whether the party seeking relief has asserted extraordinary circumstances, and, second, if so, to hold a hearing to determine whether the asserted extraordinary circumstances actually are present. ¶ 33 Larry's arguments are misplaced. She does not discern the difference between the order issued in M.L.B. and the order issued here. The holding in M.L.B. was predicated on a final decision of the circuit court, not an interlocutory decision, as is the case here. [14] Accordingly, the two-part process described in M.L.B. does not apply here. Subpart (h) of Wis. Stat. § 806.07(1) permits a court to relieve a party from a judgment or an order for [a]ny other reasons justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. As we have explained, the circuit court fully set out the circumstances that justified equitable relief from the default judgment. ¶ 34 Larry contests the circuit court's conclusion that Rutherford is protected by qualified immunity. She contends that the circuit court could not determine that Rutherford is protected by qualified immunity without the development of facts relating to Rutherford's participation in the entry into her home. ¶ 35 The circuit court concluded that the complaint alleged that all the officers were engaged in substantially the same conduct and that under the undisputed facts presented to the court at Harris's motion hearing, that conduct did not violate Larry's constitutional rights. The circuit court concluded that all of the officers' actions were discretionary and taken in the course of their official duties as community caretakers. Therefore, all of the officers were entitled to immunity as a matter of law. Accordingly, the facts were sufficiently established for the court to conclude that the doctrine of qualified immunity protected all of the officers from liability. ¶ 36 Furthermore, Larry does not contest that the entry into her home was lawful; nor does she contest that Harris and Foster are protected from liability by qualified immunity and the conduct ascribed to Rutherford in the complaint largely mirrored the conduct ascribed to Harris. Therefore, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by vacating the default judgment against Rutherford, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 806.07(1)(h), due to the common conduct from which the complaint arose.