John R. Ammerman v. Paddy A. Hauden
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2005 WI 79 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2003AP2249 John R. Ammerman, Robert L. Klein and Brian G. Sumption, Plaintiffs, ROI Investments, Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, v. Paddy A. Hauden and Susan A. Scholl, Defendants-RespondentsCross Petitioners. REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Reported at: 276 Wis. 2d 309, 686 N.W.2d 455 (Ct. App. 2004-Unpublished) OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: April 26, 2005 SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: Circuit Dane Stuart A. Schwartz JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ROGGENSACK, J., did not participate. June 17, 2005 ATTORNEYS: For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by George B. Strother, IV, Kristin J. Sederholm and Krekeler Strother, S.C., Madison, and oral argument by George B. Strother. For the defendants-respondents-cross petitioners there were briefs by Andrew W. Erlandson and Hurley, Burish & Milliken, S.C., Madison, and oral argument by Andrew W. Erlandson. 2005 WI 79 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2003AP2249 (L.C. No. 1999CV1060) STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT John R. Ammerman, Robert L. Klein and Brian G. Sumption, Plaintiffs, ROI Investments, FILED Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, JUN 17, 2005 v. Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court Paddy A. Hauden and Susan A. Scholl, Defendants-Respondents-Cross Petitioners. REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. ¶1 PER CURIAM. We dismiss the petition Dismissed. and cross- petition for review as improvidently granted. ¶2 Plaintiff, ROI Investments, petitioned, and defendants, Paddy Hauden and Susan Scholl, cross-petitioned this court for review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals which affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit No. 2003AP2249 court's judgment of $303,523.15 on counterclaims related to a failed real estate transaction. ¶3 The following issues were presented by the petition and cross-petition: 1. 2. Did the circuit court properly award defendants damages based on loss-of-bargain? 3. Were defendants interest? ¶4 what Did the circuit court properly award default judgment against the plaintiff, a partnership, because the partnership did not appear at trial with counsel even though two of the three partners appeared individually? We accepted review primarily to address the issue of constitutes an entitled appearance in to pre-judgment partnership law. After examination of the record and the briefs of the parties, and after hearing oral argument, we conclude that the record does not adequately present the principal question for which we took the case. Rather, the record demonstrates that the partners present at trial did not object to the numerous statements made by the circuit court indicating that there was no appearance on behalf of the partnership. Therefore, a default judgment was properly entered. ¶5 Accordingly, we determine that review in this case was improvidently granted, and we dismiss the petition and crosspetition for review. By the Court. Review of the appeals is dismissed. 2 decision of the court of No. ¶6 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, participation. 3 J. 2003AP2249 withdrew from No. 1 2003AP2249
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
