By: dmc-admin//November 4, 2002//
Accordingly, we affirm the order dismissing this action.
Under the analysis set out in Schaefer v. Riegelman, 2002 WI 18, , we conclude Cassidy’s signature on the initial summons and on the initial complaint was a fundamental defect because he was suspended from the practice of law in Wisconsin. We also conclude that, even if the defect could be cured under the corrective provision in Wis. Stat. § 802.05(1)(a), the Town did not cure the defect on the summons because it never filed and served a summons signed by new counsel. Therefore, the circuit court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and it properly dismissed this action.”
Order affirmed.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
Dist IV, Dane County, DeChambeau, J., Vergeront, P.J.
Attorneys:
For Appellant: Constance L. Anderson, Madison; Gregory D. Murray, Madison
For Respondent: Michael R. Haas, Edgerton; Stephen J. Liccione, Milwaukee; Andrew W. Erlandson, Madison