TE V LLC v. Santana Collins

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
April 28, 2020
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2019AP1106 Cir. Ct. No. 2019SC14924

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

TE V LLC,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

SANTANA COLLINS,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
LAURA GRAMLING PEREZ, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded with
directions.

¶1 DONALD, J.1 Santana Collins appeals a circuit court order denying
her motion to reopen the judgment of eviction. Because it is unclear from the
1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(a) (2017-18).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version unless otherwise noted.
No. 2019AP1106

record whether Collins raised valid legal grounds to contest her eviction, we
reverse the order denying Collins’s motion to reopen and remand this matter to the
circuit court to establish whether grounds exist to reopen the judgment of eviction.

BACKGROUND

¶2 On May 14, 2019, TE V LLC filed an eviction action against
Collins. On May 30, 2019, Collins appeared at the eviction return date and
contested the eviction before a court commissioner. Collins appeared pro se.
There is no record of the proceeding; however it is apparent from the record before
us that the court commissioner entered a default judgment of eviction and issued
an immediate Writ of Restitution.

¶3 On June 4, 2019, Collins filed a motion to reopen, which was heard
by the circuit court as an emergency hearing on the same day. Collins again
appeared pro se and told the circuit court that the eviction squad was coming to
her apartment that day, but that she had paid her rent. The circuit court asked the
deputy to “double-check … that the eviction hasn’t been carried out yet with the
Eviction Squad[.]” The circuit court then went off the record. The only record of
the circuit court’s decision on Collins’s motion to reopen comes from the CCAP
record,2 which states:

Court’s bailiff contacted the eviction squad and was
informed they were at the property. Court finds that the
plaintiff was entitled to an order for eviction and that the
Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department were currently
overseeing the “No Movers” eviction, therefore, the court
does NOT find excusable neglect/good cause for reopening

2
Wisconsin’s CCAP (Consolidated Court Automation Programs) is an online website
that contains information entered by court staff of which this court may take judicial notice. See
Kirk v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 2013 WI App 32, ¶5 n.1, 346 Wis. 2d 635, 829 N.W.2d 522.

2
No. 2019AP1106

the case or reasonable prospect for success on the merits.
Based upon the record before the Court, the Defendants
motion to reopen has been Denied by the Court. Judgment
of eviction dated 5/30/19 remains.

¶4 Collins subsequently obtained counsel. This appeal follows.

DISCUSSION

¶5 On appeal, Collins primarily challenges the procedure underlying
her eviction, arguing that WIS. STAT. §§ 799.206 and 799.207 do not permit court
commissioners to immediately enter judgments of eviction against defendants who
appear at their return dates to contest their cases. Rather, Collins contends that
“the statutes require ten days within which a defendant may seek de novo review,
before the court commissioner’s decision becomes a judgment,” otherwise the
statues would violate due process as they would deny eviction defendants equal
protection. (Emphasis added.) TE V LLC contends that Collins’s appeal is moot,
as she has already been removed from the property and our decision will have no
practical legal effect. In the alternative, TE V LLC contends that the court
commissioner was within her authority to enter a default judgment, as Collins
failed to comply with § 799.206(3) by not raising a valid legal ground to contest
her eviction. TE V LLC also contends that Collins was not denied due process as
the proper procedure for challenging a default judgment is to file a motion to
reopen, which Collins did, and Collins had a hearing on the motion.

¶6 We note first, that even if Collins’s appeal is moot because she is no
longer on the premises at issue, we may nonetheless consider a moot issue if “the
issue has great public importance, a statute’s constitutionality is involved, or a
decision is needed to guide the trial courts.” State ex rel. Olson v. Litscher, 2000
WI App 61, ¶3, 233 Wis. 2d 685, 608 N.W.2d 425 (citation omitted). A moot

3
No. 2019AP1106

issue may also be considered on appeal where the issue is “‘likely of repetition and
yet evades review’ because the situation involved is one that typically is resolved
before completion of the appellate process.” Id. (citation omitted). We agree with
Collins that her exact situation is likely to occur frequently. Therefore, we do not
dismiss her appeal on mootness grounds.

¶7 While we choose not to dismiss Collins’s appeal for mootness, we
cannot, however, decide the appeal on the merits as the record before us is so
sparse with factual information. Based on the record before us, it appears as
though the small claims court commissioner entered a default judgment of eviction
against Collins. TE V LLC contends that the court commissioner was within her
authority to do so, as Collins failed to comply with WIS. STAT. § 799.206(3),
which states:

When all parties appear in person or by their attorneys on
the return date in an eviction, garnishment, or replevin
action and any party raises valid legal grounds for a
contest, the matter shall be forthwith scheduled for a
hearing, to be held as soon as possible before a judge and in
the case of an eviction action, not more than 30 days after
the return date.

(Emphasis added.) It is undisputed that Collins appeared at the eviction return
date and contested the eviction, but the grounds are unknown as no record of the
hearing exists. When Collins filed a motion to reopen the judgment of eviction,
the circuit court did not ascertain on the record whether Collins had cause to
reopen the eviction judgment. Thus, it is impossible for this court to discern on
what grounds the motion was denied. The only clear fact from the record is that
the eviction squad was already at Collins’s apartment when the hearing was taking
place.

4
No. 2019AP1106

¶8 Accordingly, we must reverse the order denying Collins’s motion to
reopen and remand the cause for further proceedings to determine whether
grounds exist for Collins’s judgment of eviction to be reopened.

By the Court.—Order reversed and cause remanded with directions.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

5