831 N.W.2d 413
Wis.2013Background
- Southeast obtained arbitration award against Northeast (doing business as EA Green Bay, LLC) for $101,693.
- Northeast refused to pay; Southeast filed a garnishment against a Denmark State Bank account titled in EA Green Bay, LLC d/b/a Paul Davis Restoration & Remodeling of NE WI d/b/a Building Werks.
- Brown County Circuit Court held Northeast and EA Green Bay, LLC were the same entity; Court of Appeals reversed, treating d/b/a as a separate entity or nonentity.
- Wisconsin Supreme Court adopts the view that a d/b/a is not a distinct entity; a judgment against the d/b/a is enforceable against the underlying legal entity.
- Court holds: the bank account is property of the debtor and subject to garnishment; the judgment against the d/b/a can be satisfied from that account; remand to circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a judgment against a DBA can be enforced against the underlying entity | Southeast contends DBA is not a separate entity and the judgment should bind the underlying entity. | Northeast contends the DBA is a distinct entity or nonentity not subject to enforcement against the entity. | Yes; DBA is not a distinct entity; judgment enforceable against underlying entity. |
| Do Wisconsin cases treat a DBA as merely descriptive and non-distinct for garnishment purposes | Southeast relies on Jacob/Binon/Capsavage to support enforcement against the entity. | Northeast argues those cases do not directly address garnishment against a DBA. | Yes; those cases support treat DBA as non-distinct, enabling enforcement against the entity. |
| Is the Denmark State Bank account subject to garnishment as property of the debtor | Account is property of the debtor (EA Green Bay, LLC doing business as Northeast) and can be garnished. | Northeast argues the account owner is EA Green Bay, LLC, which is distinct from Northeast. | Yes; funds in the account are property of the debtor and subject to garnishment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacob v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 203 Wis. 2d 524 (Ct. App. 1996) (d/b/a designation is merely descriptive and not a separate entity)
- Binon v. Great N. Ins. Co., 218 Wis. 2d 26 (Ct. App. 1998) (d/b/a designation treated as non-distinct for purposes relevant to the dispute)
- Capsavage v. Esser, 224 Wis. 2d 404 (Ct. App. 1999) (d/b/a designation is simply another way to refer to the underlying entity)