MBS-Certified Public Accountants, LLC v. Wisconsin Bell Inc.
2012 WI 15
| Wis. | 2012Background
- MBS-Certified Public Accountants, LLC and Schmitt sue Wisconsin Bell and ILD for monetary damages under Wis. Stat. § 100.207, § 100.18(1), and the Wisconsin Organized Crime Control Act.
- Circuit court dismissed monetary-relief claims against ILD and Wisconsin Bell under the voluntary payment doctrine, with an exception for one charge under § 100.207.
- Court of Appeals largely upheld the dismissal, relying on Putnam and the absence of explicit statutory abrogation of the doctrine.
- Wisconsin seeks review to determine if the voluntary payment doctrine can bar statutory damages and whether § 100.18(1) and the Crime Control Act fall within its reach.
- Major issue is whether the voluntary payment doctrine is a viable defense to statutory causes of action created by Wis. Stat. § 100.207 and related statutes; the court ultimately holds it is not for § 100.207.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the voluntary payment doctrine a viable defense to Wis. Stat. § 100.207 monetary claims? | MBS argues doctrine bars § 100.207 damages. | Defendants contend Putnam forecloses this; doctrine applies unless explicitly abrogated. | No; doctrine not applicable to § 100.207 claims. |
| Did Putnam resolve whether the doctrine applies to § 100.18(1) claims? | MBS contends Putnam did not decide this issue. | Defendants rely on Putnam as controlling across statutes. | Not decided by Putnam; remanded for § 100.18(1) analysis. |
| Does § 100.207(3)(a) alignment with anti-cramming policies override the voluntary payment doctrine? | Doctrine would undermine remedial purposes of § 100.207. | Doctrine should apply unless explicitly abrogated. | Yes; doctrine is inapplicable to § 100.207 claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Putnam v. Time Warner Cable of Se. Wis., 255 Wis. 2d 447 (2002 WI 108) (voluntary payment doctrine barred damager claims; scope unclear for statutory claims)
- Fuchsgruber v. Custom Accessories, Inc., 244 Wis. 2d 758 (2001 WI 81) (abrogation requires explicit language; burden on legislature not to override common law without clear expression)
- Putnam, cited for doctrine application; (footnote context), 255 Wis. 2d 447 (2002 WI 108) (doctrine discussed in context of statutory/contract claims; not as a blanket rule)
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004 WI 58) (textual/plain meaning approach to statutory interpretation; scope/context/purpose)
- Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, 308 Wis. 2d 103 (2008 WI 22) (court declined to apply economic loss doctrine to HIPA-like statutory claims; supportive of robust remedial construction)