Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Mills

Michael Mills appeals from an amended judgment which determined that Mills’ defense to a replevin action was frivolous under sec. 814.025(1) and (3)(b), Stats, and assessed costs and fees against Mills’ attorney. We ordered the parties to address whether the appeal should be dismissed. We conclude that we should dismiss the appeal.

A replevin judgment was entered March 3, 1987 against Mills after he filed an answer but did not appear at trial; an amended judgment assessing costs and fees against Mills’ attorney for bringing a frivolous defense was entered June 5, 1987; the notice of appeal was…