Never Ignore the Statute of Limitations
The Wisconsin Court of Appeal was called upon to resolve a dispute over the application of a statute of limitations in a suit against American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Gage Creighbaum, Sherry Lagios, and Dimitrios Lagios (the “defendants”) who appealed an order denying their motion to dismiss. The trial court held that the defendants waived their statute of limitations defense by not raising it prior to filing their notice of appearance and serving their request for admissions in response to Maas’ amended complaint. In Justin M. Maas v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Gage M., No. 2011AP1661 (Wis.App. 08/01/2012) the Wisconsin Court of Appeal resolved the issue.
On August 20, 2007, Creighbaum crashed his vehicle into a vehicle operated by Maas, resulting in personal injury to Maas. On August 18, 2010, two days before the end of the three-year statute of limitations period, Maas filed a summons and complaint against the defendants related to his injuries. Maas failed to serve any of the defendants with the summons and complaint.
Maas filed an amended summons and complaint on February 15, 2011, which he served on the defendants. The amended summons and complaint contained the same cause of action and named the same defendants as the original summons and complaint. The defendants filed an answer to Maas’ amended summons and complaint alleging Maas failed to obtain proper service of process on Creighbaum and the Lagioses and the court therefore lacked personal jurisdiction over them and alleged that Maas’ claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the defendants’ failure to raise their jurisdictional objection prior to filing the notice of appearance and serving the request for admissions constituted a waiver of their statute of limitations objection. The court further held that Maas’ action was properly commenced and that the amended complaint related back to the original complaint.
On appeal, the defendants argued that even though Maas filed his original summons and complaint two days prior to the running of the three-year statute of limitations period, his claim is barred because he failed to serve any of the defendants with the summons and complaint within ninety days of the filing as required by Wisconsin statutes.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeal concluded that the statutes are clear. An action to recover damages for personal injuries shall be commenced within 3 years or be barred. An action is commenced as to any defendant when a summons and a complaint naming the person as defendant are filed with the court, provided service of an authenticated copy of the summons and of the complaint is made upon the defendant within 90 days after filing. Thus, if service is not made within ninety days of the filing of the summons and complaint, the action is not commenced. If not commenced within the three-year statute of limitations period, the action is barred.
It was undisputed that Maas failed to serve any of the defendants with the original summons and complaint within ninety days of filing. Wisconsin procedure requires, therefore, that the court conclude his action was never commenced prior to the running of the limitation period and is therefore barred.
Maas’ failure to serve the defendants with the original summons and complaint within ninety days was a fundamental defect which deprived the trial court of personal jurisdiction over the defendants and rendered the original pleading a legal nullity. The trial court conclusion that the defendants waived their jurisdictional objection by failing to raise the objection when they filed their notice of appearance and served their requests for admissions in response to Maas’ amended pleading fails since there was nothing for the defendants to waive.
Maas’ failure to serve the defendants with the original summons and complaint within ninety days resulted in the three-year statute of limitations period expiring without an action having been commenced. The failure was a fundamental defect which rendered the pleading a legal nullity and could not be remedied by the subsequent filing of an amended pleading after the statute of limitations period expired.
Statutes of limitation were designed to protect people against stale claims because, if suit is not filed promptly, memories fade and witnesses can move away from the jurisdiction. Parties and lawyers that wait until the last moment to sue are taking a chance of losing those rights because of their sloth. Mr. Maas is not without a remedy, however, because his lawyer’s failure to serve the defendants within the 90 days allowed by statute might allow for a case against the lawyer for failing to act within the custom and practice of lawyers in his community.
Although the waiver argument was original and successful in the trial court it did not stand up to scrutiny since no one can waive a nullity nor can a cause of action be created by waiver.