By: Derek Hawkins//May 29, 2018//
WI Court of Appeals – District III
Case Name: Red Wing Aeroplane v. Michael Corral
Case No.: 2017AP25
Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.
Focus: Court Error – Default Judgement
Michael Corral, pro se, appeals from a default judgment granted in favor of Red Wing Aeroplane Company. We affirm. Red Wing hired Corral as a pilot. Shortly after Corral’s training began, he drove a Red Wing company car to a Green Bay Packers football game. Red Wing claimed that Corral “took a company vehicle to attend a Green Bay Packers game, against both company policy and contrary to warnings from other employees. Corral was informed that he was being terminated for unlawful use of company property. Red Wing thereafter commenced the present civil action against Corral, claiming that, at the time of separation, Corral still owed the company $2,000 on the promissory note Corral executed at the time he was hired. Personal service of the summons and complaint was accomplished upon Corral in Arizona on January 19, 2016.
WISCONSIN STAT. § 806.02(1) confers discretion upon the circuit court in deciding whether to grant default judgment. We will affirm on appeal the court’s decision to grant default unless a clearly erroneous exercise of discretion is shown. Johns v. County of Oneida, 201 Wis. 2d 600, 605, 549 N.W.2d 269 (Ct. App. 1996). Corral does not allege in his appellate briefs that he served an answer or other responsive pleading upon Red Wing within twenty days after service of the complaint upon him, as required by WIS. STAT. § 802.06(1). In fact, Corral fails to address the issue of default judgment whatsoever in his appellate briefs; his briefs on appeal do not argue why the default judgment was entered in error. Instead, Corral’s briefs address solely the issue of summary judgment. As a result, Corral has forfeited the opportunity for our review of the default issue. See Reiman Assocs., Inc. v. R/A Advert., Inc., 102 Wis. 2d 305, 306 n.1, 306 N.W.2d 292 (Ct. App. 1981).