REISCHEL v. US BANK, 2006 WI App 56

290 Wis.2d 510, 712 N.W.2d 86

Benedict J. Reischel, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. US Bank P/K/A Firstar Bank-Milwaukee, N.A., Defendant-Respondent, Deneen Weinz, Defendant.[†]

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I.
No. 2004AP2554.
Opinion Filed: February 7, 2006.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]
[†] Petition for Review Filed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: DENNIS P. MORONEY, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Fine, Curley and Kessler, JJ.

¶ 1 PER CURIAM.

Benedict J. Reischel, pro se, appeals from the judgment dismissing his complaint as untimely. The issue on appeal is whether the circuit court properly determined that Reischel’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm.

¶ 2 Reischel filed an action against U.S. Bank on February 9, 2004, and U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Reischel than filed an amended complaint on April 29, 2004. The amended complaint appears to allege a claim for fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud.[1] U.S. Bank once again moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and because the action was barred under the statute of limitations.

¶ 3 The statute of limitations for fraud is six years from the date the aggrieved party discovers the facts that constitute the fraud. WIS. STAT. § 893.93(1)(b) (2003-04). In his complaint, Reischel asserts that the acts that constituted the fraud occurred between May 1996 and May 1997. He filed his original complaint in February 2004, more than six years after these acts. During the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the circuit court asked Reischel why he had not started the action sooner. Reischel replied that he was too busy at the time. We agree with the circuit court that Reischel’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

[1] Reischel acted pro se in this matter and the complaint is somewhat difficult to discern. The complaint refers to actions of the Bank that caused him to be “swindled” out of money.
jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TEMPLIN, 886 N.W.2d 79 (2016)

886 N.W.2d 79 (2016) 2016 WI 83 In the Matter of DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Thor…

9 years ago

EASTERLING v. LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION, No. 2016AP190 (Wis. App. 2/2/2017)

     Recommended for publication in the official reports. STATE OF WISCONSIN IN THE COURT OF…

9 years ago

VOSBURG v. PUTNEY, 80 Wis. 523 (1891)

80 Wis. 523, *; 50 N.W. 403, ** VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v.…

9 years ago

STATE v. NOWAK, 2011 WI App 99

334 Wis.2d 809, 800 N.W.2d 957 State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jenny L. Nowak, Defendant-Appellant.…

9 years ago

STATE v. HAASE, 2006 WI 126

297 Wis.2d 320 State v. Haase. No. 2005AP987-CR.Supreme Court of Wisconsin. September 21, 2006. [EDITOR'S…

9 years ago

STATE v. SKIBBA, 2001 WI App 224

247 Wis.2d 990, 635 N.W.2d 26 State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Anthony F. Skibba, Sr.,…

9 years ago