Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-2157 Schaefer v. Riegelman

By: dmc-admin//March 4, 2002//

00-2157 Schaefer v. Riegelman

By: dmc-admin//March 4, 2002//

Listen to this article

Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the matter.

“We conclude that the pleadings were defective, the defect was fundamental rather than technical, and that the defect was not cured by any action taken by the plaintiff.

Thus, the circuit court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on a lack of jurisdiction. …

“Section 802.05(1)(a) clearly lays out the basic requirements for a sufficient signature on a complaint. The signature must (1) be handwritten; (2) be the signature of an attorney of record; and (3) be in that attorney’s name. Although the signature in this case was handwritten, it was not the signature of the attorney of record in that attorney’s own name. Fishel was not licensed to practice law in Wisconsin at the time the pleadings were filed and she was therefore ineligible to appear as an attorney of record.

…Weinstein – the only potential attorney of record in this case – did not personally sign the summons or the complaint and the signature was therefore not his own. Because no attorney of record signed the pleadings in accordance with sec. 802.05(1)(a), the pleadings were defective. …

“Here, Schaefer called the defective pleadings to the attention of the plaintiff in his answers to both the original complaint and the amended complaint. Over eight months after Schaefer’s second answer, when no attempt to correct the defect had been made, Schaefer filed for summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

DISSENTING OPINION: Abrahamson, Ch. J., with whom Bradley and Prosser, JJ., join. “I agree that the original summons and complaint at issue in the present case contain a defect and that the second summons and complaint are not perfect. However, I disagree with the majority that the defects are of sufficient magnitude to justify dismissal of the action. Therefore, I dissent.”

Racine County, Schroeder, J., Wilcox, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Robert R. Weinstine, Minneapolis, Minn.

For Respondent: Terry E. Johnson, David F. Andres, Milwaukee

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests