|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 96-0100-FT
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
BYRON R. YOUNGREN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CURTIS L. PAULSRUD and
PATRICIA A. PAULSRUD,
Defendants-Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Eau Claire County:
ERIC J. WAHL, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Cane, P.J.,
LaRocque and Myse, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Byron Youngren appeals a judgment that dismissed his
lawsuit against Curtis and Patricia Paulsrud.[1] The trial court ruled that the six-year
contract statute of limitations barred Youngren's lawsuit seeking damages for
the Paulsruds' default on their 1989 promissory note. Youngren claimed that the Paulsruds issued the 1989 note in
exchange for a satisfaction of judgment he issued releasing a previously
obtained judgment. While Youngren filed
his complaint alleging the recorded satisfaction of judgment was forged within
the six-year statute of limitations, he neglected to seek enforcement of the
promissory note until he sought to amend the complaint after the statute of
limitations had run. His original
complaint sought only to expunge his satisfaction on the ground that the
Paulsruds had forged his name to it. He
did not seek damages for the note. His
amended complaint sought such damages and dropped the expungement request.
The trial court ruled
that the claim on the note did not "relate back" to the time of the
filing of the original complaint. On
appeal, Youngren argues that his amended complaint did relate back and
therefore did not violate the six-year contract statute of limitations. We reject this argument and therefore affirm
the judgment.
Youngren's amended
complaint did not relate back to the date of the original complaint. A claim asserted in an amended complaint
relates back to the date of the original complaint if the claim arose out of
the transaction, occurrence, or event set forth or attempted to have been set
forth in the original complaint.
Section 802.09(3), Stats. This often depends on whether the defendant
would have had adequate notice of the subsequent claim from the original
complaint. See Biggart v.
Barstad, 182 Wis.2d 421, 430, 513 N.W.2d 681, 684 (Ct. App. 1994). An amended complaint will not relate back to
the date of the original complaint whenever the amended complaint contains an
alteration of such magnitude that it deprives the defendants of fair and
adequate notice of the nature of the new claim. Id. at 429, 513 N.W.2d at 684.
Notice of a suit to set
aside a judgment satisfaction would not supply a reasonable person fair notice
of a claim based upon a note. While
they superficially concern the same event, both pleadings fundamentally are
distinct in time, place, and character.
The first asserts a clandestine falsification of court files, the second
a simple breach of contract. Because
the original action would not provide the Paulsruds notice that Youngren was
seeking to enforce the promissory note, the claim did not relate back to the
date of the original complaint. The
trial court correctly barred Youngren's lawsuit under the six-year contract
statute of limitations.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.