State high court accepts Megna case, denies review of Habush/Cannon dispute

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept three new cases, including one that involves a recent candidate for the bench, but will not review a dispute between two Milwaukee personal injury firms.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals in February ruled that Milwaukee firm Cannon & Dunphy did not violate privacy laws when it paid to use the names of competing Milwaukee firm Habush, Habush & Rottier in Internet search engines to promote its own link. State justices voted Friday to decline review of the case, with Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissenting.

The justices voted to deny review of 71 other cases, as well.

The state’s high court will review a case involving Vince Megna, a recent candidate for the state Supreme Court. The justices voted to accept Betz v. Diamond Jim’s Auto Sales, which involves a settlement agreement reached without the representative attorneys’ knowledge.

The court will examine several issues in the case, including a potential conflict between the provisions of fee-shifting statutes and the established public policy right of parties to settle disputes. The court also will review whether the parties’ settlement agreement was a valid, unambiguous, binding contract that released used car dealer Diamond Jim’s Auto Sales of any further obligation in connection with plaintiff Randy L. Betz’s claims, including responsibility for attorney Megna’s fees.

Megna lost in the state Supreme Court primaries in February.

The court also will review Attorney’s Title Guaranty Fund v. Town Bank, which involves two issues arising from competing efforts by two banks to recover assets from the same borrower – a Milwaukee landlord who failed to pay back loans, filed for bankruptcy and became entangled in a legal battle with his own lawyer. At the request of Heartland Wisconsin Corp., the justices will review a Court of Appeals’ decision affirming a circuit court order granting summary judgment in favor of Town Bank.

The third case the court accepted Friday is Belding v. Demoulin, an insurance “stacking” case that stems from an auto accident involving an uninsured drunken driver. A decision could resolve apparent discrepancies between statutes regulating insurance coverage and affect more than a dozen pending cases and other cases still being filed.