Background
The Village of Whitefish Bay cited Ross Bolingbroke 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 the municipal court found him guilty, Bolingbroke appealed to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court.
The circuit court allowed 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 failed to appear at a hearing on his first motion to reopen after notifying the court that he had suffered injuries. His second motion to reopen asserted that the audio-only appearance should have been accepted and that his injuries prevented him from attending the first motion hearing. The circuit court denied that motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record supported the circuit court’s determination that Bolingbroke had not shown excusable neglect. The traffic matters were governed by Wis. Stat. § 345.36, while the resisting-or-obstructing forfeiture matter was governed by Wis. Stat. § 806.07. Both statutes permit reopening based on excusable neglect, meaning conduct that might be expected of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.
The court concluded that a reasonably prudent person who received permission to appear by Zoom would not assume that an audio-only appearance was sufficient. Bolingbroke also failed to provide the pretrial-conference transcript, requiring the appellate court to assume it supported the circuit court’s ruling. His medical documents showed an emergency-room visit for a rib injury or chest-wall strain but did not substantiate his claims of hospitalization, several broken ribs, or an inability to attend court or request a remote appearance. Although the circuit court did not expressly identify the governing legal standard, the appellate court held that the record, when evaluated under the correct standard, supported its decision.
Key Takeaways
- Permission to appear by Zoom did not entitle Bolingbroke to participate by audio only, and his resulting nonappearance was not excusable neglect.
- Medical records must credibly connect an asserted injury to the party’s inability to attend or seek alternative arrangements for a scheduled hearing.
- An appellate court may uphold a discretionary ruling even when the circuit court did not articulate the governing standard, provided the record supports the result under the correct law.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary and procedural burden on a party seeking to reopen a default judgment. A generalized claim of injury, unsupported by records showing an actual inability to participate or request accommodations, may not establish excusable neglect.
It also underscores that litigants must comply with the specific conditions imposed for remote appearances and must provide an adequate appellate record, including relevant transcripts, when challenging a lower court’s treatment of an alleged appearance.