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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT