Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-2836 Badger Enterprises Inc. v. HinesVennie, et al.

By: dmc-admin//June 3, 2002//

01-2836 Badger Enterprises Inc. v. HinesVennie, et al.

By: dmc-admin//June 3, 2002//

Listen to this article

Debra HinesVennie appeals a summary judgment in favor of the Franz defendants1 and Zoltan Karaszy determining the corporate status of Badger Enterprises, Inc. Badger filed a complaint asking the court for a judgment declaring the number of Badger shares issued and outstanding and the name and address of the owner of each share. HinesVennie was among the many defendants, all of whom Badger thought might have an interest in the company.

HinesVennie argues that the trial court did not determine Badger’s ownership. At one point, the Franz defendants asked for a determination of beneficial interest, but they withdrew that request for relief in their summary judgment brief and asked the trial court to determine the essential issues raised in Badger’s complaint and set forth in the scheduling order.

Badger never amended its pleadings to have the court more broadly determine the corporation’s ownership. The trial court construed the Franz defendants’ brief as a motion for summary judgment. It determined that Badger was a duly incorporated company, that Karaszy was the sole director and that no shares were ever issued.

We affirm the judgment.

This opinion will not be published.

Dist III, Barron County, Brunner, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Matthew A. Biegert, New Richmond

For Respondent: Gary L. Bakke, New Richmond

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