The trial court orally granted Smith's motion to enlarge on the ground that the late filing was the product of excusable neglect. The Schmidts then moved that the trial court reconsider in light of Ahrens-Cadillac Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Belongia, 151 Wis.2d 763, 445 N.W.2d 744 (Ct.App. 1989). The trial court granted the motion for reconsideration, concluding that under Ahrens-Cadillac it lacked competency to grant Smith's motion to enlarge the time to hear motions after verdict.
The circuit court "loses its competency to consider postverdict motions filed after the twenty day deadline, unless the court has granted an extension within that time." Ahrens Cadillac Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Belongia, 151 Wis. 2d 763, 767, 445 N.W.2d 744 (Ct. App. 1989). See also Hartford Ins. Co. v. Wales, 138 Wis. 2d 508, 406 N.W.2d 426 (1987) (similarly concluding that "the circuit court lacked the competency to exercise its discretion to decide the [postverdict] motions").
The trial court provided an oral decision that presents a fully substantiated set of factual findings, an accurate analysis of the legal issue, and a correct conclusion that the County's non-compliance with ยง 805.16 (1), STATS., deprived the trial court of competency to consider the County's post-verdict motions. See Brookhouse v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 130 Wis.2d 166, 167-171, 387 N.W.2d 82, 83-84 (Ct.App. 1986) (trial court correctly ruled that it lost competency to exercise jurisdiction because party failed to comply with ยง 805.16, STATS.); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Lyons, 137 Wis.2d 397, 420, 405 N.W.2d 354, 363 (Ct.App. 1987); Ahrens-Cadillac Oldsmobile v. Belongia, 151 Wis.2d 763, 765-767 445 N.W.2d 744, 745 (Ct.App. 1989). Accordingly, we include and incorporate the relevant portions of the trial court's decision as the appendix to this decision.
"See Ahrens-Cadillac Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Belongia, 151 Wis.2d 763, 766, 445 N.W.2d 744 (Ct. App. 1989).
ยถ 11 Schramm's next claim is that because the trial court's amendment came more than ninety days after the verdict, it lost competency to act under WIS. STAT. ยง 805.16 (2005-06), thus, rendering the order null and void. Schramm is correct that ยง 805.16 sets strict guidelines for motions after verdict and that a trial court can not change the jury's answers after the time deadlines set forth in the statute have expired. Fakler v. Nathan, 214 Wis. 2d 458, 464, 571 N.W.2d 465 (Ct.App. 1997); Ahrens-Cadillac Oldsmobile, Inc. v.Belongia, 151 Wis. 2d 763, 766-67, 445 N.W.2d 744 (Ct.App. 1989). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2005-06 version unless otherwise noted.
When a court fails to comply with the time limits of ยง 805.16, it loses competency to decide a motion after verdict. See, e.g., Jos. P. Jansen Co. v. MilwaukeeArea Dist. Bd. of Vocational, Technical AdultEduc., 105 Wis. 2d 1, 7, 10, 312 N.W.2d 813 (1981); Alberts v. Rzepiejewski, 18 Wis. 2d 252, 256-57, 118 N.W.2d 172 (1962); Ahrens-Cadillac Oldsmobile v.Belongia, 151 Wis. 2d 763, 766-67, 445 N.W.2d 744 (Ct.App. 1989). ยถ 23 Buksyk argues the court's March 14 hearing on the new trial motion was not within sixty days of the verdicts.
Conflicts between statutes are disfavored and will be held not to exist if the statutes may be otherwise construed. See Ahrens-Cadillac Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Belongia, 151 Wis. 2d 763, 766, 445 N.W.2d 744 (Ct.App. 1989). 2.
Conflicts between statutes are disfavored and will be held not to exist if the statutes may be otherwise construed. Ahrens-Cadillac Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Belongia, 151 Wis.2d 763, 766, 445 N.W.2d 744, 745 (Ct.App. 1989). The court's duty is to attempt to harmonize statutes, if possible, and read them together in a way that will give each full force and effect.
See Northridge Co. v. W.R. Grace Co., 205 Wis.2d 265, 284, 556 N.W.2d 345, 353 (Ct.App. 1996); ยง 805.16(1), STATS. The twenty-day time limit is strictly construed and the trial court lacks the ability to consider postverdict motions filed after the twenty-day deadline, unless the court has granted an extension within that time. See Northridge, 205 Wis.2d at 284, 556 N.W.2d at 353; Ahrens-Cadillac Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Belongia, 151 Wis.2d 763, 766-67, 445 N.W.2d 744, 745 (Ct.App. 1989). The verdict in this case was rendered on January 12, 1996.
Section 805.16(1), Stats., provides that "[m]otions after verdict shall be filed and served within 20 days after the verdict" unless the trial court extends the time. Ahrens-Cadillac Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Belongia, 151 Wis.2d 763, 766-767, 445 N.W.2d 744, 745 (Ct.App. 1989). The jury returned the verdict on February 9, 1995.