Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Leasing Hotline

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
March 27, 2009

Default Judgment

Where no reasonable excuse can be provided by either the defendant or the attorney for failure to file a timely answer, a default judgment may not be vacated. Baker f/k/a/ Lockridge v. Abdallah, Appeal No. 2007AP504, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District One, Aug. 19, 2008.

Baker leased space from Abdallah to operate a salon. When the lease term commenced, Baker discovered that the roof leaked, and asked Abdallah to fix it. Abdallah failed to repair the roof and Baker was unable to open her salon. She vacated the premises and leased a different space for almost double the amount of rent. Baker then commenced an action against Abdallah and arranged to have him served personally on or about June 26, 2006. No answer was filed and Baker moved for a default judgment on Aug. 24, 2006. On Oct. 6, 2006, Abdallah's attorney discovered Abdallah's pleadings and moved to extend his time to answer on Oct. 30, 2006. The trial court denied the motion and entered a default judgment against Abdallah on Dec. 13, 2006. Abdallah appealed, and the appellate court affirmed.

The court held that the dispute between the parties was credibility oriented and that the trial court was in the best position to consider the credibility of the parties. It held that absent an abuse of discretion, it would not question the trial court's discretion regarding the credibility of the parties. The appellate court further held that the actions of the attorney were not excusable neglect, as the attorney admitted receipt of the answer on Oct. 6, 2006, but failed to move for an extension of time until Oct. 30, 2006, a period of approximately three weeks. The attorney was unable to produce evidence of proper procedures in place at the time the documents were received, and therefore a delay of three weeks was inexcusable.

Default Judgment

Where no reasonable excuse can be provided by either the defendant or the attorney for failure to file a timely answer, a default judgment may not be vacated. Baker f/k/a/ Lockridge v. Abdallah, Appeal No. 2007AP504, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District One, Aug. 19, 2008.

Baker leased space from Abdallah to operate a salon. When the lease term commenced, Baker discovered that the roof leaked, and asked Abdallah to fix it. Abdallah failed to repair the roof and Baker was unable to open her salon. She vacated the premises and leased a different space for almost double the amount of rent. Baker then commenced an action against Abdallah and arranged to have him served personally on or about June 26, 2006. No answer was filed and Baker moved for a default judgment on Aug. 24, 2006. On Oct. 6, 2006, Abdallah's attorney discovered Abdallah's pleadings and moved to extend his time to answer on Oct. 30, 2006. The trial court denied the motion and entered a default judgment against Abdallah on Dec. 13, 2006. Abdallah appealed, and the appellate court affirmed.

The court held that the dispute between the parties was credibility oriented and that the trial court was in the best position to consider the credibility of the parties. It held that absent an abuse of discretion, it would not question the trial court's discretion regarding the credibility of the parties. The appellate court further held that the actions of the attorney were not excusable neglect, as the attorney admitted receipt of the answer on Oct. 6, 2006, but failed to move for an extension of time until Oct. 30, 2006, a period of approximately three weeks. The attorney was unable to produce evidence of proper procedures in place at the time the documents were received, and therefore a delay of three weeks was inexcusable.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit Image

Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.