Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

98-3021 Paulman v. Pemberton

By: dmc-admin//July 2, 2001//

98-3021 Paulman v. Pemberton

By: dmc-admin//July 2, 2001//

Listen to this article

Defendant’s conversion of his mother’s property is not merely an assumption; it is a fact he conceded in the trial court. As part of the settlement stipulation, he agreed that if he failed to meet the stipulation’s terms, the trial court would enter judgment on the merits in favor of the estate. He did violate the agreement, and the trial court did enter judgment.

We therefore reverse the trial court order determining that defendant’s home was protected by sec. 815.20, and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Adams County, Polivka, J., Dykman, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Thomas A. Van Beckum Jr., Kenosha

For Respondent: Charles Paulman, Adams

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests