COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED February 20, 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. 95-1036
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT I
LEADERTECH SYSTEMS OF
CHICAGO, INC.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WALTER CHESSER,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of
the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
FRANK T. CRIVELLO, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Wedemeyer, P.J.,
Sullivan and Fine, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Walter Chesser, pro se, appeals from the trial
court's order denying his motion to set aside the judgment entered in favor of
Leadertech Systems of Chicago, Inc., and his motion for reconsideration. On appeal, Chesser argues that the trial
court lacked personal jurisdiction. We
affirm.
Leadertech, an Illinois
corporation, sells computer components.
Chesser, a resident of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, sells computers. During June, 1993, Chesser ordered and
received computer components from Leadertech.
The payment terms were that upon receipt of the components, Chesser
would issue a check payable to Leadertech for the components. Leadertech, however, never received payment
from Chesser for any of the computer components shipped to Chesser. Subsequently, Leadertech sued Chesser for
$5,623.53, the value of the shipments.
The trial court ordered judgment in favor of Leadertech for $5,623.53
plus attorney's fees of $1,000 and statutory costs. Chesser filed motions for reconsideration and to set aside the
verdict, which were denied by the trial court.
Section 801.05(1)(a) and
(b), Stats., provides that a
court has jurisdiction over a “defendant who when the action is commenced: (a) [i]s a natural person present within
this state when served; or (b) [i]s a natural person domiciled within this
state....” The trial court determined
that: “[i]n this case, the defendant
clearly is venued in this county, and a series of business transactions as
plead occurred between the defendant and a foreign corporation.” Traditionally, the primary foundation upon
which personal jurisdiction rests is the physical presence of the defendant in
the state where the suit is brought. Oxmans'
Erwin Meat Co. v. Blacketer, 86 Wis.2d 683, 687, 273 N.W.2d 285, 286
(1979). The record is clear that not
only was Chesser domiciled in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, but that he was also served
at his home in Milwaukee. Therefore,
the trial court properly determined that it had personal jurisdiction.
Chesser also argues that
certain language on the Leadertech invoices deprives Wisconsin of jurisdiction
because the invoices provide that any legal action brought on an invoice “shall
be governed by the laws of Illinois.”
This does not deprive Wisconsin of personal jurisdiction, and Chesser
does not provide this court with any authority to the contrary. Further, contrary to Chesser's final argument,
trying this matter in Wisconsin is not contrary to the principles of due
process. Due process protects a
nonresident defendant against litigating in an inconvenient forum. See International Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed.2d 95 (1945). As noted, Chesser was a resident of
Wisconsin at all relevant times. This
case does not raise any due process concerns.
By the Court.—Order
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.