2009AP1953 Commerce Bluff One Condominium Association, Inc., v. Dixon

Listen to this article

Civil Procedure
Amended pleadings

It was not an abuse of discretion not to allow a party to amend its pleadings two-and-a-half years into the case.

“[W]e cannot say that the circuit court’s lucid explanation in applying the facts and contentions to those legal principles was an erroneous exercise of discretion. As the circuit court pointed out, at the very least, Dixon and Cornerstone sat on their hands (although reading between the lines we perceive that some undisclosed strategy by Dixon and Cornerstone might have been in play). Thus, Dixon and Cornerstone have not shown the type of ‘excusable neglect’ referenced by Wipfli—something akin to ‘inadvertence in drafting the complaint or in a typing error.’ See Wipfli, 34 Wis. 2d at 174 n.1, 148 N.W.2d at 676 n.1. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of Dixon’s and Cornerstone’s motion to amend their pleading to assert cross-claims against Kubala Washatko, Hnilicka, and Ambrose Engineering.”

Affirmed.

Publication in the official reports is recommended.

2009AP1953 Commerce Bluff One Condominium Association, Inc., v. Dixon

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Flanagan, J., Fine, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Cade, Nathaniel , Jr., Milwaukee; Dondlinger, Marisa Rae, Milwaukee; For Respondent: Grady, Lance S., Waukesha; Hoeschen, Brad L., Milwaukee; Miller, Daniel K., Waukesha

Full Text