Civil Procedure — relief from judgment

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Civil Procedure — relief from judgment

In March 2013, shortly before a scheduled contested hearing, the parties in this foreclosure action jointly represented to the circuit court that all claims and counterclaims in the case had been “fully resolve[d]” and the parties merely needed to finalize settlement papers. As a result, the circuit court struck scheduled events in the case. In late May 2013, having heard nothing further from the parties, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. In August 2013, plaintiff HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., moved to vacate the May dismissal and reopen the case. The court denied the motion. In November 2013, HSBC again moved to vacate the May dismissal. The court declined to take any action on this second motion. ¶2 HSBC now appeals the two decisions not to vacate the May dismissal. We conclude that the court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying HSBC’s August motion or in deciding to take no action on the November motion. Accordingly, we affirm. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2013AP2885 HSBC Mortgages Services Inc. v. Daya et al.

Dist II, Waukesha County, Haughney, J., Blanchard, P.J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Christakis, A. Katrina, Chicago; Pilgrim, Jeffrey D., Chicago; Dizdarevic, Sulejman F., Chicago; For Respondent: Hanson, Rollie, West Allis