Tannisse Joyce v. Arnold J. Hill

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED NOTICE NOVEMBER 28, 1995 A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See § 808.10 and RULE 809.62(1), STATS. This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. No. 95-1632-FT STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT III IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ARNOLD J. HILL and KATHRYN C. HILL: TANNISSE JOYCE, Appellant, v. ARNOLD J. HILL and KATHRYN C. HILL, Respondents. APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Sawyer County: NORMAN L. YACKEL, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Before Cane, P.J., LaRocque and Myse, JJ. No. 95-1632-FT PER CURIAM. Tannisse Joyce appeals an order that denied her motion to set aside an earlier trial court order.1 The first trial court order vacated a land plat under § 236.43, STATS., involving publicly dedicated land. Joyce did not appeal the first trial court order, and her motion to set aside that order raised nothing substantively different from what she had raised in the earlier trial court proceedings. Under these circumstances, Ver Hagen v. Gibbons, 55 Wis.2d 21, 197 N.W.2d 752 (1972), bars her appeal. Litigants who miss the deadline to appeal a trial court order cannot extend this deadline by first moving the trial court to set aside its earlier order and then appealing the trial court's new order denying their motion. Id. at 24-26, 197 N.W.2d at 754-55. Rather, litigants may appeal the second order only if they raised new issues in their motions to set aside the first order. Id. Moreover, such appeals reach only the new issues. We see nothing in this appeal that removes it from the Ver Hagen rule. As a result, we order the appeal's dismissal. By the Court. Appeal dismissed. This opinion will not be published. See RULE 809.23(1)(b)5, STATS. 1 This is an expedited appeal under RULE 809.17, STATS. -2-

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.