Background
The Village of Whitefish Bay cited Ross Bolingbroke for first-offense operating while intoxicated and operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration. After the municipal court found him guilty, Bolingbroke sought a circuit-court trial. The trial was adjourned six times before beginning in November 2024, with a continuation scheduled for January 21, 2025.
Bolingbroke did not appear for the continued trial or notify the circuit court that he would be absent. After waiting nearly 30 minutes, the court entered default judgments. Bolingbroke later claimed that a medical emergency involving a rib injury prevented his appearance, but the court record contained no communication from him between January 9 and April 7. He filed a motion to reopen in May 2025, submitting an emergency-department summary and an insurance letter, but provided no additional medical evidence despite receiving extra time to do so.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the order denying Bolingbroke’s motion to reopen. Because he missed a trial and did not move to reopen within the 20-day period specified in Wisconsin Statutes section 345.36(2)(b), the court reasoned that his motion could proceed, if at all, under section 345.51, which permits reopening within six months upon a showing of good cause.
Although the circuit court relied on the civil relief standard in section 806.07, the Court of Appeals held that its excusable-neglect analysis was consistent with section 345.51’s good-cause requirement. The submitted documents did not establish that Bolingbroke was unable to attend, contact the court, or request a remote appearance. The circuit court also reasonably found that it had not received his alleged January faxes. Bolingbroke’s due-process argument was undeveloped and unsupported by legal authority, so the appellate court did not address it.
Key Takeaways
- A motion filed more than 20 days after a missed traffic trial may potentially be considered under Wisconsin Statutes section 345.51 if filed within six months, but the movant must show good cause.
- Medical records identifying an injury do not necessarily establish excusable neglect when they do not show that the person could not attend court, contact the court, or request a remote appearance.
- Documents placed only in an appellate appendix cannot supplement the circuit-court record, and undeveloped constitutional arguments may be disregarded.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary showing required to reopen a Wisconsin traffic default judgment. A defendant must substantiate not only the existence of an injury or emergency but also how it prevented attendance or timely communication with the court.
The unpublished opinion also suggests that section 345.51 may provide a discretionary route for motions filed after section 345.36’s 20-day deadline but within six months, while noting that no definitive published Wisconsin decision resolves the statutes’ interplay.