Carolina v. Dietzman

8 Citing cases

  1. Associated Bank, N.A. v. Bradley

    827 N.W.2d 929 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013)

    See id. By adopting the circuit court's rationale and abandoning their earlier theory, the Bradleys have not only embraced a winning argument, but avoided having to make the awkward argument that the circuit court reached the correct result for the wrong reason. ¶ 12 Instead, we conclude the circuit court applied the appropriate framework for “cleaning up” a defective foreclosure, which was set forth in Buchner v. Gether Trust, 241 Wis. 148, 5 N.W.2d 806 (1942), and Carolina Builders Corp. v. Dietzman, 2007 WI App 201, 304 Wis.2d 773, 739 N.W.2d 53. In both cases, a junior lienholder was left out of the foreclosure and the court was required to determine how this omission affected a subsequent bona fide purchaser.

  2. Bach v. Milwaukee Cnty. (In re Bach)

    20-23343-kmp (Bankr. E.D. Wis. Jul. 1, 2022)

    To foreclose the junior judgment liens held by the Milwaukee County Defendants, and to obtain clear title to the Property upon the completion of the foreclosure cases, Chase and Fannie Mae had to name the Milwaukee County Defendants as defendants in the foreclosure proceedings. In general, foreclosure of a mortgage terminates liens that are junior to the mortgage being foreclosed, but only if the junior lienholders are named as defendants. See, e.g., Carolina Builders Corp. v. Dietzman, 2007 WI.App. 201, ¶ 28, 304 Wis.2d 773, 791 ("Case law clearly establishes that a mortgage foreclosure action does not extinguish the lien of a lienholder that is not a party to the action.");

  3. Voters with Facts v. City of Eau Claire

    2021 WI App. 36 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021)

    A resolution of the issues the parties present requires that we interpret and apply statutes and case law, all of which involve questions of law that we review de novo. SeeCarolina Builders Corp. v. Dietzman , 2007 WI App 201, ¶13, 304 Wis. 2d 773, 739 N.W.2d 53. ¶10 Our supreme court "has applied a definite rule that certiorari proceedings must be commenced within six months of the action sought to be reviewed and parties who fail to so commence the proceedings are guilty of laches."

  4. Miller v. the Hanover Insurance Company

    No. 2008AP1494 (Wis. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2009)

    We review questions of law de novo. Carolina Builders Corp. v. Dietzman, 2007 WI App 201, ¶ 13, 304 Wis. 2d 773, 739 N.W.2d 53. Discussion

  5. Fox Valley Fin., Inc. v. Gholston

    2019 WI App. 21 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    The construction of a statute and its application to undisputed facts are questions of law that we determine de novo. Global Steel Prods. Corp. v. Ecklund Carriers, Inc. , 2002 WI App 91, ¶11, 253 Wis. 2d 588, 644 N.W.2d 269. A good faith purchaser is one who takes property without actual or constructive notice of adverse claims. See Carolina Builders Corp. v. Dietzman , 2007 WI App 201, ¶31, 304 Wis. 2d 773, 739 N.W.2d 53. Constructive notice is a policy determination that treats a person as if he or she had actual notice. Bayland Bldgs., Inc. v. Spirit Master Funding VIII, LLC , 2017 WI App 42, ¶5, 377 Wis. 2d 149, 900 N.W.2d 94. Constructive notice occurs when a person would have acquired knowledge of a fact, as well as the liabilities associated with that knowledge, if he or she had exercised a reasonable degree of care. Id.

  6. Gulso v. Jessie

    794 N.W.2d 926 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010)

    ¶ 46 "A purchaser in good faith is `one without notice, constructive or actual, of a prior conveyance.'" Carolina Builders Corp. v. Dietzman, 2007 WI App 201, ¶ 31, 304 Wis. 2d 773, 739 N.W.2d 53 (quoting Kordecki v. Rizzo, 106 Wis. 2d 713, 719-20, 317 N.W.2d 479 (1982)). ¶ 47 The undisputed facts here are that the Gulsos had actual notice of the easements James claims at the time they purchased Lot One from Cindy.

  7. Estate of Torres

    2008 WI App. 113 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 3 times

    All parties agree that no material facts are in dispute here. This appeal instead requires the interpretation and application of case law and statutes, for which our review is likewise de novo. Carolina Builders Corp. v. Dietzman, 2007 WI App 201, ¶ 13, 304 Wis. 2d 773, 739 N.W.2d 53, review denied, 2007 WI 134, 305 Wis. 2d 130, 742 N.W.2d 527 (WI Oct. 10, 2007). ¶ 5. Where an injury or death is compensable under the Worker's Compensation Act, Wis. STAT. ch. 102, the affected employee is barred from any other remedy for the same injury or death not only against his or her employer, but also against a co-employee.

  8. Rogers v. Saunders

    2008 WI App. 53 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 13 times
    In Rogers v. Saunders (16 Me. 101,) is a learned and well-reasoned opinion, by Mr. Justice Shepley, covering all the points in this case, and reviewing the authorities.

    Neither party here asserts that a factual dispute exists, and we agree and conclude that the resolution of this case requires only that we construe statutes and analyze precedent. Our review of such questions of law is likewise de novo. Carolina Builders Corp. v. Dietzman, 2007 WI App 201, ¶ 13, 304 Wis. 2d 773, 739 N.W.2d 53, review denied, 2007 WI 134, 305 Wis. 2d 130, 742 N.W.2d 527. ¶ 7.