Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Leasing Hotline
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
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.