Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

2004AP2746 Affordable Erecting, Inc., v. Neosho Trompler, Inc.

By: dmc-admin//June 12, 2006//

2004AP2746 Affordable Erecting, Inc., v. Neosho Trompler, Inc.

By: dmc-admin//June 12, 2006//

Listen to this article

“The actions and non-actions by Affordable lead to only one reasonable inference: that Affordable accepted the terms of the May 21, 2003, settlement. Affordable had knowledge that the other parties were relying upon the settlement agreement, yet made no attempt to clarify its position. This court has previously concluded that a party’s failure to act can amount to acquiescence by silence. Wisconsin Brick & Block Corp. v. Vogel, 54 Wis. 2d 321, 328, 195 N.W.2d 664 (1972) (reasoning that the party ‘had actual knowledge of the sale and knowledge the other parties were relying upon the sale and it made no protest under circumstances when a protest ought to have been made by a reasonable [person].’). When Acuity informed the other parties that the case was settled, Affordable remained silent. When the circuit court notified the parties that it would dismiss the case for failure to prosecute, Affordable remained silent. Affordable remained silent even though it had actual knowledge that the other parties were relying on the settlement agreement.”

“Reviewing all of Affordable’s actions and non-actions together, the only reasonable inference that Neosho could have made was that Affordable accepted the terms of the settlement. We therefore conclude that Neosho reasonably inferred that Affordable had accepted the settlement.”

“Under the terms of the May 21, 2003, settlement, Neosho accepted $5,000 from Acuity, and agreed not to bring future claims or lawsuits against Affordable arising out of the facts and issues from the lawsuit. This $5,000 payment was $74,000 less than the amount Neosho claimed it was owed by Affordable. Because Neosho believed it had reached a settlement with Affordable, Neosho relinquished all other legal claims, including a suit against Affordable for full restitution.”

Affirmed.

Court of Appeals, Butler, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Meyeroff, Robert N., Milwaukee; Fredericks, James M., Milwaukee

For Respondent: Bogart, Steven P., Milwaukee; Hubing, Bridget, 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