Juneau County v. Associated Bank, N.A.
828 N.W.2d 262
Wis. Ct. App.2013Background
- Bank appeals a default foreclosure judgment on two Madej parcels, arguing the judgment is void for failure to strictly follow Wis. Stat. § 75.521(3) notice requirements.
- County sought addresses from records in the register of deeds; title company reported Bank address unknown for those parcels.
- Lis pendens listed no address; complaints listed 1305 Main Street as Bank address.
- County mailed certified notices to the Bank at a different address (parcel 79) and documented receipt.
- Default judgment entered April 12, 2011; Bank moved to vacate in 2012; circuit court and Wisconsin Court of Appeals held strict compliance with § 75.521(3) by limiting search to records in the register of deeds relating to the affected parcels.
- Court affirmed, concluding no obligation to search beyond the office of the register of deeds for the affected parcels under § 75.521(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the county must search beyond the register of deeds for an ascertainable address | Bank argues records outside the parcel's office records show a 1305 Main Street address | County limited search to records relating to the affected parcels in the register of deeds | Yes, county did not need beyond those records; strict compliance established |
| Whether 'ascertainable' addresses must be identified from the parcel’s office records | Bank contends ascertainable address could be found from other filings | Statute directs ascertainment from record in register of deeds for the parcel | Addresses identified from parcel records suffice; no broader search required |
| Whether the Bank’s unknown-address status was properly handled under § 75.521(3)(c) | Unknown addresses require inclusion in the affidavit and notice mailing | County properly listed unknowns and mailed as required | County complied with § 75.521(3)(c); no error in designation of unknown address |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 339 Wis. 2d 493 (Wis. 2012) (discretion in vacating judgments; standard of review for abuse of discretion)
- Sukala v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 282 Wis. 2d 46 (Wis. 2005) (standard of review for discretionary decisions)
- Murr v. St. Croix Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 332 Wis. 2d 172 (Wis. 2011) (statutory interpretation framework; plain language)
- Byers v. State, 263 Wis. 2d 113 (Wis. 2003) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Kalal v. State, 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (interpretation of statutes; contextual analysis)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Green, 311 Wis. 2d 715 (Wis. 2008) (statutory interpretation; plain language)
- Barber v. Weber, 292 Wis. 2d 426 (Wis. 2006) (separating strict compliance from mere compliance)