Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion / Civil Procedure – continuances — interpreters

Civil Procedure – continuances — interpreters

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Civil Procedure – continuances — interpreters

Veronika McCarthy appeals, pro se, from a summary judgment of foreclosure granted to Nekoosa Port Edwards State Bank. McCarthy argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in denying her request for a continuance of the summary judgment hearing based on the factors courts apply when considering a continuance request and based on Strook v. Kedinger, 2009 WI App 31, 316 Wis. 2d 548, 766 N.W.2d 219, a case involving the right to an interpreter in court proceedings. She also argues that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to the Bank on its foreclosure action because she pled counterclaims that present disputed issues of material fact related to the merits of the summary judgment motion.

For the following reasons, we conclude that the court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying McCarthy’s request for a continuance under the factors she cites or under Strook. We also conclude that the court properly granted summary judgment on the Bank’s foreclosure action. We therefore affirm the judgment. However, we remand for further proceedings on McCarthy’s counterclaims. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP668 Nekoosa Port Edwards State Bank v. McCarthy, et al.

Dist IV, Adams County, Roemer, J., Blanchard, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: McCarthy, Veronika, pro se; For Respondent: Quinn, James T., Wisconsin Rapids


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*