COURT OF
APPEALS DECISION DATED AND
RELEASED July
18, 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. 96-0754-FT
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN
COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
GUNDERSEN
CLINIC,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
GERALD
R. LYDEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for La Crosse
County: MICHAEL J. MULROY, Judge.
Affirmed.
DYKMAN,
J. This is a single-judge appeal
decided pursuant to § 752.31(2)(a), Stats. Gerald R. Lyden appeals from a money
judgment for $3,019.60. Lyden argues
that the trial court erred by not finding that acceptance of Lyden's settlement
check constituted an accord and satisfaction of Lyden's entire account. We conclude that the circuit court's finding
that the settlement was only an accord and satisfaction of a single claim and
not Lyden's entire account is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Gerald
Lyden was a patient of Gundersen Clinic for many years. From 1990 to 1994, Lyden incurred various
medical bills at Gundersen in the aggregate amount of $3,019.60. These bills were turned over to a collection
agency. On January 5, 1995, Lyden
was admitted to Gundersen following an accident and was billed $7,371.30 for
services rendered as a result of the accident.
Lyden did not pay these bills, and Gundersen turned these bills over to
the same collection agency.
Lyden
attempted to settle his past-due accounts with Gundersen. Lyden and Gundersen entered into an
agreement under which Lyden would pay Gundersen $5,200, plus an additional
$105.00 for a current charge never turned over for collection. Lyden complied with the agreement and
Gundersen released Lyden from the $7,371.30 debt. Lyden attempted to get Gundersen to sign a full release and satisfaction
upon making the $5,200 payment, but Gundersen refused.
Later,
Gundersen attempted to collect the additional $3,019.60 owed. Gundersen offered Lyden a settlement of
$1,200 for the amount outstanding.
Lyden refused to pay, claiming that the $5,200 payment was intended as a
release of his entire debt to Gundersen.
Gundersen denies this, maintaining that the $5,200 settlement was solely
for the $7,371.30 account. The circuit
court found that the $5,200 payment was only intended as a release of the
7,371.30 account and did not amount to a satisfaction of the entire debt owed
by Lyden. Lyden appeals.
DISCUSSION
Accord
and satisfaction is an agreement between parties to discharge an existing
disputed claim. Flambeau Products
Corp. v. Honeywell Info. Sys., Inc., 116 Wis.2d 95, 112, 341 N.W.2d
655, 664 (1984). Under this rule, if
the creditor cashes a check from a debtor that has been offered as full payment
for a disputed claim, the creditor is deemed to have accepted the debtor's
conditional offer of full payment for the entire claim notwithstanding any
reservations by the creditor. Id.
at 101, 341 N.W.2d at 658. In other
words, the creditor's act of cashing the check discharges the entire debt, even
if the creditor objects to the amount either verbally or in writing. See Butler v. Kocisko, 166
Wis.2d 212, 219, 479 N.W.2d 208, 211-12 (Ct. App. 1991).
In
order for accord and satisfaction to apply, two conditions must be met. Flambeau, 116 Wis.2d at 111,
341 N.W.2d at 663. First, there must be
a good faith dispute about the debt. Id.[1] Second, the creditor must have reasonable
notice that the check is intended to be in full satisfaction of the debt. Id.
The
issue presented to the circuit court was a factual dispute about whether Lyden
offered the check as full payment for the entire debt or whether he was only
settling the $7,317.30 claim. The
circuit court determined that, based on the evidence, Lyden's payment was not
intended as full and final payment of all claims, but only represented satisfaction
of one account.
Drawing
an inference from undisputed facts when more than one inference is possible is
a finding of fact which is binding upon the appellate court. State v. Friday, 147 Wis.2d
359, 370, 434 N.W.2d 85, 89 (1989).
Findings of fact by the trial court will not be upset on appeal unless
they are clearly erroneous. Noll
v. Dimiceli's, Inc., 115 Wis.2d 641, 643, 340 N.W.2d 575, 577 (Ct. App.
1983). Thus, we may only reject a
clearly unreasonable inference. Friday,
147 Wis.2d at 371, 434 N.W.2d at 89.
The
circuit court's finding that the payment was not intended as satisfaction of
Lyden's entire past-due balance is reasonable based on the evidence in the
record. The receipt given to Lyden upon
payment indicated only that the $7,371.30 claim was paid in full. In addition, Pauline Seim of Gundersen's
patient accounts department, Kelley Dohlby, Gundersen's patient accounts clerk,
and Amy Brown of Gundersen's collection agency all testified that the $5,200
payment was intended only to settle the $7,371.30 claim and not the entire
past-due balance. Based on this
testimony, the circuit court reasonably discounted the testimony of Lyden, who
claimed his entire past-due balance was settled in full. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's
decision.
By
the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
Not
recommended for publication in the official reports. See Rule
809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.
[1] We question whether this condition is
satisfied. Lyden does not explain what
dispute existed. It appears that the
only reason for Gundersen's offer of settlement was its conclusion that
half-a-loaf was better than none. But
we pursue this issue no further, because the parties have not briefed it. Waushara County v. Graf, 166
Wis.2d 442, 451, 480 N.W.2d 16, 19 (1992) (stating "appellate courts need
not and ordinarily will not consider or decide issues which are not
specifically raised on appeal"), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 894 (1992).