COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED August 3, 1995 |
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. 94-1344
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
CLARA C. NELSON and
OLIVER NELSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF MAUSTON,
HERITAGE MUTUAL
INSURANCE CO.,
and KERRY P. KUWITZKY,
Defendants-Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Juneau County:
JOHN W. BRADY, Judge. Reversed
and cause remanded for further proceedings.
Before Eich, C.J.,
Gartzke, P.J., and Dykman, J.
PER CURIAM. Clara C. Nelson and Oliver Nelson appeal
from a judgment dismissing their complaint.
We reverse.
The trial court granted
the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Summary-judgment methodology is well established in cases such as Grams
v. Boss, 97 Wis.2d 332, 338-39, 294 N.W.2d 473, 476-77 (1980), and need
not be repeated. The Nelsons' complaint
alleged that Clara was injured when the vehicle she was driving was struck by a
vehicle owned by defendant City of Mauston and negligently operated by
defendant Kerry P. Kuwitzky. It alleged
that defendant Heritage Mutual Insurance Company was the liability insurer for
the City. The complaint states a
claim. The answer raises issues of fact
and law.
The defendants moved for
summary judgment on the ground of accord and satisfaction. Their argument was based on Clara's cashing
of a check for $1,500 from the insurance company. The rear of the check stated in fine print that "endorsement
of this draft constitutes a complete release and settlement of the claim or
account stated on the face hereof."
The trial court first denied the motion, but subsequently reconsidered
and granted it.
The Nelsons argue that
this case is more properly governed by the law of release, as set forth in Brown
v. Hammermill Paper Co., 88 Wis.2d 224, 276 N.W.2d 709 (1979). The defendants argue that the law of release
is irrelevant because the trial court's decision was based on accord and
satisfaction. This argument misses the
point. The issue is whether the
decision should have been based on accord and satisfaction. The defendants further argue that the
Nelsons did not argue the law of release in the trial court. However, a review of their brief on the
summary-judgment motion shows that they did.
The defendants do not otherwise explain why the law of release should
not be applied in this case.
We conclude that the law
of release is more appropriate than accord and satisfaction. As the trial court noted in its original
summary-judgment decision, accord and satisfaction arises primarily in a
commercial context. The cases relied on
by the trial court, such as Flambeau Prods. Corp. v. Honeywell Info.
Sys., Inc., 116 Wis.2d 95, 341 N.W.2d 655 (1984) and Myron Soik & Sons v. Stokely USA,
175 Wis.2d 456, 498 N.W.2d 897 (Ct. App. 1993), show no indication that they
were intended to supplant the law of release as established in Brown
or similar cases. Therefore, we
conclude that the trial court erred in granting the defendants' motion for
summary judgment.
By the Court.—Judgment
reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.