ILNews

Judges rule Wisconsin court had personal jurisdiction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has determined a Johnson Superior judge should not have set aside a Wisconsin court’s default judgment involving the sale and delivery of a boat between parties in the two states.

In Harry Kaufmann Motorcars, Inc. v. Schumaker Performance, Inc., No. 41A05-1108-MI-411, the COA reversed a decision to not give full faith and credit to a default judgment finding by a Wisconsin court.

The case involves the purchase of a boat following the Indianapolis Boat, Sport and Travel Show. Wisconsin-based company HKM agreed to buy the boat from Schumaker Performance and made a $9,000 down payment. A Schumaker representative delivered the boat in April 2007 to Wisconsin and accepted the final payment. After the initial delivery, a Schumaker representative picked the boat up and conducted repairs in Indiana before later returning the boat to HKM in Wisconsin.

 In July 2009, HKM filed a suit in Dane County, Wis., against Schumaker and co-defendant Eliminator Custom Boats alleging breach of contract and warranty claims relating to the boat sale. Schumaker was served with process in Indiana, but declined to appear and later informed the court of its intent. The Wisconsin court entered default judgment against Schumaker and Eliminator Custom Boats in June 2010 for $436,651.71. HKM later filed its complaint to domesticate foreign judgment in the Johnson County trial court, and in May 2011 the Indiana judge granted Schumaker’s motion to dismiss.

Finding that this case involves local services, goods or contracts received by a company in Wisconsin, the Indiana appellate court determined that Wisconsin’s long-arm statute applies to this case. The Indiana panel relied on Capitol Fixture and Woodworking Grp. v. Woodma Distribs., Inc., 432 N.W.2d 647, 649 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988) to determine that two inquiries had been satisfied to give the Wisconsin court personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. Those two factors were the initial contact between HKM and Schumaker, resulting in the purchase, and the boat delivery from Indiana to Wisconsin that included the final payment being accepted in that state.

“As an Indiana seller, Schumaker cannot be surprised that it could possibly expose itself to litigation relating to the sale of its product in a buyer’s state,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote in the opinion. “In addition, Schumaker arranged for its counsel to communicate with the Wisconsin court, and through its counsel, could likely have arranged for effective local counsel without unreasonably inconveniencing itself. Accordingly, we conclude that the balancing of inconveniences in this instance falls in favor of HKM and conferring personal jurisdiction over Schumaker in the Wisconsin courts.”

The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this appellate opinion.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT