Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-3077 Carmain v. Affiliated Capital Corp. (57928)

By: dmc-admin//October 7, 2002//

01-3077 Carmain v. Affiliated Capital Corp. (57928)

By: dmc-admin//October 7, 2002//

Listen to this article

“No explanation was provided as to why Loeb, president of the corporation and a nonpracticing lawyer, gave the complaint to Barkelar, a nonlawyer who ‘deals’ only with small claims cases on behalf of ACC. No explanation was provided as to why, despite the fact that the clearly worded summons informed ACC of its legal obligations and responsibilities and contained a request for relief well beyond the limits of a small claims court, Barkelar thought a letter would suffice. Finding no excusable neglect was a proper exercise of the circuit court’s discretion.”

However, we agree with ACC that the circuit court erred in prohibiting it from presenting evidence regarding damages.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Dist II, Walworth County, Kennedy, J., Snyder, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Lisle W. Blackbourn, Elkhorn; Daniel W. Krueger, Elkhorn

For Respondent: Robert E. Mahoney, Delavan

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