00-0420 Manitowoc Western Co. v. Montonen

Listen to this article

“We agree that encouraging the efficient resolution of disputes through settlement negotiations and avoiding factual inquiries that are certain to devolve into swearing matches are important public policy considerations. These public policy goals may, upon initial examination, appear to justify rules like the ones Montonen advances. Ultimately, however, we are not convinced that they are best achieved by an expansion of Wisconsin’s fraud exception to the transient rule.

“The rules as advanced by Montonen create at least as many factual inquiries as they eliminate. This is true even of the rule that Montonen, citing K Mart, characterizes as a bright-line rule. That rule leaves questions such as the following ripe for contention: What constitutes a settlement negotiation? Was the served party in the jurisdiction for the sole purpose of those negotiations? What happens if it is the primary purpose but not the sole purpose? When does one purpose end and another begin?…

“Indeed, the disputes that would arise from these types of questions are foreshadowed by the facts in this case. For example, Montonen asserts that Manitowoc Western ‘invited’ him to Wisconsin although Manitowoc Western argues that it was Montonen who requested the meeting. Manitowoc Western also argues that the meeting in Wisconsin may not have constituted a ‘settlement discussion,’ yet Montonen maintains that it is beyond dispute that the purpose of the meeting was to ‘discuss settlement.’ Both parties submitted affidavits in support of their positions, each with competing versions of the facts. …

“The rules that Montonen advances also fail to account for another important public policy that provides a compelling reason to retain the present fraud exception’s relatively narrow formulation. Wisconsin has a definite interest in providing a forum where its citizens may seek legal redress. [Citations] Expanding immunity from service of process to cover parties in settlement negotiations may limit and obfuscate the availability of a Wisconsin forum for Wisconsin litigants.”

In sum, we decline to extend the fraud exception to the transient rule of personal jurisdiction in order to prohibit service of a lawsuit on a person who comes to Wisconsin to engage in settlement negotiations because the public policies at stake do not warrant an expansion of that exception.

Affirmed.

Court of Appeals; Bradley, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: John J. Prentice, Andrew T. Phillips, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Richard C. Ninneman, Brian D. Winters, Milwaukee