COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED May 15, 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. 95-2022
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT II
BRISTOL VETERINARY
SERVICE, S.C.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM SCHMIDT,
Defendant-Appellant,
KATHERINE SCHMIDT,
d/b/a SCHMIDT
ARABIANS,
Defendant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Kenosha County:
ROBERT V. BAKER, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Brown, Nettesheim
and Snyder, JJ.
PER CURIAM. William Schmidt appeals
pro se from a judgment in favor of Bristol Veterinary Service, S.C. for unpaid
bills. Schmidt's defense to the action
was that the veterinary bills were incurred by his wife, Katherine, unknown to
him. The issues on appeal are whether
the circuit court had jurisdiction over Schmidt, a resident of Illinois, and
whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding that Schmidt owed the
sums billed. We affirm the judgment.
This was a collection
action. The trial court found Schmidt
liable to Bristol Veterinary on the basis of apparent agency. There are three elements to apparent
agency: (1) acts by the agent or
principal justifying belief in the agency, (2) knowledge thereof of the party
sought to be held, and (3) reliance consistent with ordinary care and
prudence. Vandervest v. Kauffman
Pizza, Inc., 60 Wis.2d 230, 245, 208 N.W.2d 428, 435 (1973). Whether the facts as determined fulfill a
legal conclusion presents a question of law which we review de novo. Popp v. Popp, 146 Wis.2d 778,
787, 432 N.W.2d 600, 603 (Ct. App. 1988).
The evidence established
that Bristol Veterinary provided services on an Illinois horse farm owned by
Schmidt and his wife. The Schmidts were
known to be husband and wife. Schmidt's
name and home address were included on health certificates issued on five
horses. Although Schmidt himself never
contacted Bristol Veterinary for services, bills were mailed to the Schmidt
residence in the name of Schmidt Arabians.
Bristol Veterinary was never informed that Schmidt himself was not a
part of the horse operation. The
evidence was sufficient to establish that Bristol Veterinary was justified in
believing that Schmidt was involved in the joint venture and that Schmidt's
wife acted as his agent. It also
establishes that reliance on the relationship was consistent with ordinary
care.
Schmidt argues that he
lacked any knowledge about the horse operation and the bills incurred. Schmidt admitted that difficulties in his
marital relationship prevented him from viewing mail sent to the residence or discussing
the horse farm with his wife. However,
Schmidt admitted that he agreed to help his wife buy the horse farm. He was not sure whether his wife had
incorporated the business. Moreover, at
one point in the early 1990s, Schmidt became concerned about the size of the
horse farm and attempted to warn his wife to scale back. When his attempt to discuss the matter
proved futile, Schmidt admittedly threw up his hands and said, "[A]s long
as I'm not involved, I don't care."
This evidence establishes some working knowledge of the services and
costs necessary to maintain the horse farm.
That Schmidt chose not to keep apprised of the costs or affirmatively
protect himself is not a defense.
Schmidt correctly points
out that the trial court made a factual error when it noted that Schmidt lives
at the horse farm and was able to observe what was happening there. Schmidt does not live on the farm. The trial court's error does not affect the
determination that Schmidt is liable to Bristol Veterinary under the doctrine
of apparent agency.
Finally, we reject
Schmidt's claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him because he
did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Wisconsin. The evidence pertaining to the services
rendered at the farm, services provided at the veterinarian office in Wisconsin
and payments made in Wisconsin establish a business enterprise with sufficient
contacts to acquire jurisdiction over Schmidt.
See § 801.05(1)(d), Stats. Those contacts are imputed to Schmidt by
virtue of the apparent agency relationship.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.