Brooks v. Bank of Wisconsin Dells

12 Citing cases

  1. Henry v. Riverwood Clinic, S.C.

    Case No. 96-0791 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 1997)

    Estoppel by record is closely related to claim preclusion, except that under estoppel by record, it is the record of the earlier proceedings, rather than the judgment itself, that bars the second proceeding. Brooks v. Bank ofWisconsin Dells, 161 Wis.2d 39, 46, 467 N.W.2d 187, 190 (Ct. App. 1991). Both rules require an identity of parties and an identity of causes of action or claims in the two proceedings.

  2. Weigel v. Grimmett

    496 N.W.2d 206 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 21 times
    Concluding that even with a written fee agreement there must be separate proof of an agreement for a lien

    Accordingly, his allegations in support of that theory fail to state a claim. See Brooks v. Bank of Wisconsin Dells, 161 Wis.2d 39, 49-50, 467 N.W.2d 187, 191 (Ct.App. 1991) (complaint fails to state a claim when under no conditions would relief be appropriate). B. Weigel's Statutory Lien Claim.

  3. Seropian v. Wachovia Bank

    CASE NO. 10-80397-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON (S.D. Fla. Jul. 26, 2010)   Cited 9 times
    Dismissing plaintiffs' civil theft claim because plaintiffs alleged that the civil theft occurred in December of 2008 when the decedent was still living and therefore "[p]laintiffs allegations fail to meet the requirement that [p]laintiffs had possession of the property or an immediate right to possession at the time of the conversion."

    Plaintiffs' reliance upon Brooks v. Bank of Wisconsin Dells, 161 Wis.2d 39 (Wis. App. 1991) is not well founded. In Brooks, the court allowed beneficiaries of Madeline Stanton's POD CDs to bring a negligence claim against a bank officer.

  4. In re Holter

    401 B.R. 372 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2009)   Cited 8 times

    Id. The term "party" in this context refers only to a person's status as a party to the account; it has no bearing on standing. See Brooks v. Bank of Wiscousin Dells, 161 Wis.2d 39, 467 N.W.2d 187, 189 (Wis.App.1991) ("We conclude, therefore, that the definition of `party' in sec. 705.01(6), Stats., relates only to the person or persons who are parties to a multiple-party or agency account. It has nothing to do with legal standing to sue a depositor's agent for alleged negligence in maintaining a POD account."). It appears that only one (unpublished) case has construed both cited subsections of § 705.

  5. Crosby v. Luehrs

    266 Neb. 827 (Neb. 2003)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that where fiduciary argues that power of attorney allowed for self-dealing, that power must be specifically authorized in instrument

    Obviously, since we have concluded that Crosby proved a prima facie case for constructive fraud, thus establishing his right to relief, it would be absurd to conclude that Crosby had no standing to sue. Cf. Brooks v. Bank of Wisconsin Dells, 161 Wis. 2d 39, 467 N.W.2d 187 (Wis.App. 1991). Were we to conclude otherwise, we would effectively abrogate the doctrine of constructive fraud.

  6. Lindas v. Cady

    183 Wis. 2d 547 (Wis. 1994)   Cited 130 times
    Holding plaintiff precluded from relitigating issue of sex discrimination in state court after having litigated issue in state personnel commission proceedings

    "Estoppel by record," the doctrine relied upon by the circuit court and court of appeals in this case, is identical to claim preclusion except that it is the record of the earlier proceeding, rather than the judgment itself, which bars the subsequent proceeding. Brooks v. Bank of Wisconsin Dells, 161 Wis.2d 39, 46, 467 N.W.2d 187 (Ct.App. 1991). In order for claim preclusion or estoppel by record to apply, there must be an identity of parties or their privies and an identity of claims in the two cases.

  7. Methodist Manor Health Center, Inc. v. Py

    2008 WI App. 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 5 times
    Rejecting an argument to extend Wisconsin's UFTA to create liability of an attorney in fact who is not a debtor within the meaning of the statute

    We are not convinced. ¶ 20. Methodist Manor cites Brooks v. Bank of Wisconsin Dells, 161 Wis. 2d 39, 467 N.W.2d 187 (Ct.App. 1991), to support its argument that Ray is liable for the acts she committed, which caused it harm. In Brooks, beneficiaries of a payable on death certificate of deposit filed suit against the Bank of Wisconsin Dells and one of its officers, who was the depositor's attorney-in-fact, after the officer cashed in the certificate and used the money to pay the depositor's living expenses.

  8. State v. Miller

    2004 WI App. 117 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 40 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Indicating that decision lacks "analysis" and there is "no explanation or logic supporting the bald conclusion that the appealability of an order makes it a final judgment on the merits. . . ."

    ¶ 30. Estoppel by record is a doctrine similar to claim preclusion under which a party is prevented from litigating what was litigated or might have been litigated in another proceeding, but it is the record of the prior proceeding, not the judgment, that is the bar to the second proceeding. Brooks v. Bank of Wisconsin Dells, 161 Wis. 2d 39, 46, 467 N.W.2d 187 (Ct.App. 1991). Estoppel by record does not apply for the first reason that claim preclusion did not: Miller is not asserting that the State is barred from refiling and litigating the charges against him; instead he asserts the State is barred from introducing the evidence Judge Krueger ruled was excluded in the prior action.

  9. Sepanek v. M I Bank of Burlington

    Case No. 96-2283 (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 1997)   Cited 1 times
    In Sepanek, the sole beneficiary of the decedent's will brought suit against a bank which held P.O.D. accounts for the decedent.

    The trial court correctly concluded that the statute discharged the Bank from liability for paying the account balances to Gould. Negligence of the bank is an exception to the discharge of claims under § 705.06(2), Stats. SeeBrooks v.Bank of Wis. Dells, 161 Wis.2d 39, 467 N.W.2d 187 (Ct.App. 1991). Joseph argues that the P.O.D. accounts were "special accounts" with an accompanying fiduciary relationship, rather than a mere creditor-debtor relationship.

  10. State v. Sullivan

    Case No. 96-2646 (Wis. Ct. App. Jul. 24, 1997)

    James argues that the State is precluded from raising this on appeal on grounds of claim preclusion, issue preclusion and estoppel by record because this information was not brought to the complaint examiner's attention. Such theories, however, apply only when there are two separate legal proceedings or actions, Northern States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis.2d 541, 550-51, 525 N.W.2d 723, 727-28 (1995); Brooks v. Bank of Wis.Dells, 161 Wis.2d 39, 46-47, 467 N.W.2d 187, 190 (Ct.App. 1991), and are inapplicable here. James's assertion that his signature was attached to an interlibrary loan request for press clippings without his consent is no more than a request that we order the department to conduct an investigation into the matter — relief that is unavailable in certiorari proceedings.