Background
The Village of Whitefish Bay issued Ross Bolingbroke citations for resisting or obstructing an officer, unreasonable and imprudent speed, failure to stop at a stop sign, failure to yield or stop for an emergency vehicle, and reckless driving endangering safety. After being found guilty in municipal court, Bolingbroke appealed to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court.
The circuit court permitted Bolingbroke to attend a pretrial conference by Zoom, but he attempted to participate by audio only. The court treated that as a nonappearance and entered no-contest pleas and default judgments. Bolingbroke later missed the hearing on his first motion to reopen after reporting that an injury had sent him to the hospital. The circuit court denied that motion and, months later, denied his second motion to reopen after finding that his medical documents did not substantiate his claimed injuries or establish that he could not attend or request a remote appearance.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed. It construed Bolingbroke’s second motion as asserting excusable neglect under Wis. Stat. § 806.07(1)(a) for the civil forfeiture matter and § 345.37(1)(b) for the traffic matters. Although the circuit court did not expressly identify the governing legal standard, the appellate court held that the record, when assessed under the correct standard, supported its discretionary decision.
The court concluded that a reasonably prudent person who had received permission to appear by Zoom would not assume that an audio-only appearance was sufficient. It also held that Bolingbroke’s medical records showed an emergency-room visit for a rib injury or chest-wall strain but did not substantiate his assertions of hospitalization and multiple broken ribs or show that he could not attend the hearing, contact the court, or request to appear remotely. His undeveloped due-process and political-bias assertions were not considered.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking to reopen a Wisconsin default judgment based on excusable neglect must show conduct consistent with what a reasonably prudent person would have done under the circumstances.
- Permission to appear through Zoom did not entitle Bolingbroke to assume that an audio-only connection would satisfy the circuit court’s appearance requirement.
- Medical records documenting an injury did not establish excusable neglect where they did not substantiate the claimed severity or demonstrate an inability to attend, contact the court, or request remote participation.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that litigants seeking relief from defaults must present concrete evidence connecting the asserted obstacle to their failure to appear. Proof of an injury alone may be insufficient when the record does not show that the injury prevented attendance or reasonable efforts to arrange an alternative appearance.
The opinion also illustrates that an appellate court may uphold a discretionary ruling despite the circuit court’s failure to articulate the applicable standard when the record, viewed under the correct law, supports the result. The decision is unpublished.