author: ANDERSON, PJ.

text:
    Brenna Kautz, a minor, by her parents and guardians, Andrew Kautz and Molly Kautz, Andrew Kautz, and Molly Kautz, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ozaukee County Agricultural Society, Defendant-Respondent, Ozaukee County, Aegis Security Insurance Company, ABC Farm Equipment Company, and American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants.
    Court of Appeals

      No. 03-3281.

      Submitted on briefs August 30, 2004.

    Decided September 29, 2004.

    2004 WI App 203
    (Also reported in 688 N.W.2d 771.)

      On behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Michael J. Hanrahan of Fox, O'Neill & Shannon, S.C., Milwaukee.
    On behalf of the defendant-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of James S. Smith of Steinhafel, Smith & Rowen, S.C., Brookfield.
    Before Anderson, PJ., Brown and Nettesheim, JJ.
   ANDERSON, PJ.

¶ 1. Brenna Kautz and her parents Molly and Andrew Kautz appeal a summary judgment dismissing her personal injury claim against the Ozaukee County Agricultural Society on the ground that the Agricultural Society was entitled to recreational immunity pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 895.52 (2001-02), the recreational immunity statute. The Kautzes' claims arose out of injuries Brenna sustained as a result of an E. coli infection she allegedly caught when she climbed on farm equipment displays at the Ozaukee County Fair and came into contact with animal waste that was not disposed of properly. The Kautzes argue that that the Agricultural Society is not immune under § 895.52 because Brenna's injury was caused by the farm equipment and not the Agricultural Society's "property," as that term is used in the statute. The Kautzes further claim that there is an issue of material fact as to whether she and her father attended the fair for the purpose of "engaging in recreational activity."

¶ 2. We conclude that the injuring mechanism was not the farm equipment, but rather the failure to properly handle animal waste and therefore Brenna's injury did stem from her use of the Agricultural Society's property. We also hold that because one of the reasons Brenna and her father attended the fair was for Brenna to have fun and enjoy the fair, they were "engaged in a recreational activity" for purposes of the statute. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's application of Wis. Stat. § 895.52 to the Kautzes' claim.

FACTS

¶ 3. The facts are brief and undisputed. On August 4, 2001, Brenna and her father, Andrew, attended the Ozaukee County Fair, which is organized and operated annually by the Agricultural Society. Brenna was two years old at the time. Andrew was employed as a technical writer for Simplicity Manufacturing, a manufacturer of lawn and garden equipment. According to Andrew, he went to the fair for three reasons: (1) to view the small tractors on display, (2) to take Brenna to the fair to have fun and (3) to see if anyone was showing honey. However, the activities he and Brenna participated in were governed by what held Brenna's attention.

¶ 4. While they were walking around the fair, Andrew carried Brenna in a backpack. After briefly visiting the horse show and staging area and the cow building, Andrew carried Brenna over to the lawn tractor display area. Andrew removed Brenna from the backpack, and she was able to climb around the tractors. While Brenna played on the tractors, Andrew began speaking with a Simplicity coworker who happened to be walking past the lawn tractor display area. Andrew made observations about the lawn tractors of Simplicity's competitors.

¶ 5. After walking to a different area of the fairgrounds, Andrew purchased Brenna a scoop of ice cream and they sat down at a picnic table. Prior to eating the ice cream, Andrew wiped Brenna's hands with a diaper wipe. Andrew and Brenna proceeded to several different areas of the fairgrounds during the remainder of their visit, returning twice more to the lawn tractor area so Brenna could climb on the tractors. Andrew and Brenna also stopped three times at the wooden playhouse area where Brenna played in two of the playhouses. The two spent a total of approximately one and one-half hours at the fair.

¶ 6. Shortly after attending the fair, Brenna became severely ill with an E. coli infection and was hospitalized. Brenna, by her parents, filed a complaint against the Agricultural Society and Ozaukee County seeking recovery for injuries Brenna sustained as a result of the infection. In the complaint, the Kautzes alleged that the Agricultural Society and the County were negligent in failing to properly dispose of animal waste at the fairgrounds. The Kautzes claimed that due to the Agricultural Society's and the County's negligence, contaminated runoff from animal wash areas was stepped in by fair attendees and tracked onto the farm equipment displays. The Kautzes alleged that Brenna came into contact with the E. coli bacteria while she was climbing on the lawn tractors displayed at the fair.

¶ 7. Thereafter, the Agricultural Society and the County filed motions for summary judgment, arguing that they were immune from liability under the recreational immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.52. The court granted summary judgment in favor of both the Agricultural Society and the County. The Kautzes appeal only from the dismissal of their claim against the Agricultural Society.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 8. We review summary judgment decisions de novo, applying the same methodology as the circuit court. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 315-17, 401 N.W.2d 816 (1987). That methodology is well established and need not be repeated here. See, e.g., Lambrecht v. Estate of Kaczmarczyk, 2001 WI 25, ¶¶ 20-24, 241 Wis. 2d 804, 623 N.W.2d 751. It is sufficient to say that summary judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Green Spring Farms, 136 Wis. 2d at 315. Additionally, we note that whether an entity is immune from liability under the recreational immunity statute involves the application of a statute to undisputed facts and thus is a question of law we review de novo. See Kloes v. Eau Claire Cavalier Baseball Ass'n, Inc., 170 Wis. 2d 77, 83-84, 487 N.W.2d 77 (Ct. App. 1992).

DISCUSSION

¶ 9. Wisconsin Stat. § 895.52 provides that no owner is liable for any injury to a person allowed to engage in a recreational activity on the owner's property. Schultz v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 229 Wis. 2d 513, 517, 600 N.W.2d 243 (Ct. App. 1999). The policy behind the statute is to encourage property owners to open their lands for recreational activities by removing a property user's potential cause of action against a property owner's alleged negligence. Doane v. Helenville Mut. Ins. Co., 216 Wis. 2d 345, 350, 575 N.W.2d 734 (Ct. App. 1998) (citing Linville v. City of Janesville, 184 Wis. 2d 705, 715, 516 N.W.2d 427 (1994)); Silingo v. Village of Mukwonago, 156 Wis. 2d 536, 544, 458 N.W.2d 379 (Ct. App. 1990); Stuart J. Ford, Comment, Wisconsin's Recreational Use Statute: Towards Sharpening the Picture at the Edges, 1991 Wis. L. Rev. 491, 491. In order to achieve the goal of encouraging property owners to open their lands to public recreation by limiting the liability of property owners, courts must liberally construe the statute in favor of property owners. See Miller ex rel. Fehring v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., 2003 WI App 58, ¶ 11, 260 Wis. 2d 581, 659 N.W.2d 494.

¶ 10. Wisconsin Stat. § 895.52 states in pertinent part:

(2) No duty; immunity FROM liability, (a) Except as provided in subs. (3) to (6), no owner and no officer, employee or agent of an owner owes to any person who enters the owner's property to engage in a recreational activity:
1. A duty to keep the property safe for recreational activities.
2. A duty to inspect the property, except as provided under s. 23.115 (2).
3. A duty to give warning of an unsafe condition, use or activity on the property.
(b) Except as provided in subs. (3) to (6), no owner and no officer, employee or agent of an owner is liable for the death of, any injury to, or any death or injury caused by, a person engaging in a recreational activity on the owner's property or for any death or injury resulting from an attack by a wild animal.

The statute defines the term "property" as "real property and buildings, structures and improvements thereon, and the waters of the state...Sec. 895.52(l)(f). "Recreational activity" means "any outdoor activity undertaken for the purpose of exercise, relaxation or pleasure, including practice or instruction in any such activity. 'Recreational activity' includes .. . outdoor sport, game or educational activity." Sec. 895.52(l)(g). In assessing an activity that is not a statutorily enumerated recreational activity, we must examine all aspects of the activity, including the injured person's subjective assessment of the activity and the intrinsic nature, purpose and consequence of the activity. Sievert v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co, 190 Wis. 2d 623, 629-31, 528 N.W.2d 413 (1995) (holding that where an activity does not specifically fall into the broad definition of "recreational activity," the court is to examine whether the activity at issue is "substantially similar" to the circumstances of a recreational activity).

¶ 11. As noted at the outset, the Kautzes challenge the circuit court's application of Wis. Stat. § 895.52 on two grounds. First, the Kautzes argue that Brenna was injured when she became infected as a result of climbing on the farm equipment and not as a result of an activity on the land or improvements to the land. The Kautzes maintain that the term "property" as defined in § 895.52 does not include moveable equipment.

¶ 12. The Kautzes wrongly focus on the farm equipment Brenna climbed on as being the instrument of her injury. The Kautzes' complaint alleges that Brenna became infected because fair attendees stepped into runoff from animal wash areas and then tracked the animal waste onto farm equipment displays. The Kautzes further complain that the Agricultural Society was negligent in maintaining the property so as to prevent infection of other fair attendees. Thus, the injuring mechanism is not the farm equipment Brenna was playing on, but rather, it is the bacteria from the animal waste that was tracked onto the equipment from the Agricultural Society's real property. If Brenna had gotten E. coli from a picnic bench or a playhouse, it could not be said that her injury came from the bench or the playhouse. Rather, it would be from the failure of the Agricultural Society to properly handle the animal waste that had accumulated on the ground. We, therefore, conclude that Brenna's injury was directly related to the condition or maintenance of the Agricultural Society's real property and the Kautzes' first challenge to recreational immunity fails. Because we so conclude, we do not need to reach the issue of whether moveable property, such as farm equipment, satisfies the statutory definition of "property."

¶ 13. Next, the Kautzes contend that there was a material issue of fact as to whether they were at the fair for the purpose of engaging in recreational activity. They argue that because they attended the fair both to check out Simplicity's competitors in the farm equipment industry, a nonrecreational purpose, and to have fun together, a recreational purpose, it is up to the jury to decide if their primary purpose for being at the fair was recreation. The Agricultural Society responds that simply because Brenna and Andrew had multiple reasons for attending the fair does not generate an issue of fact for the jury. Relying on Lasky v. City of Stevens Point, 220 Wis. 2d 1, 582 N.W.2d 64 (Ct. App. 1998), it reasons that even if Brenna and Andrew attended the fair for both business and recreation, as long as one of their motives was recreation, then recreational immunity attaches. We agree with the Agricultural Society.

¶ 14. In Lasky, we confronted the question of whether .an injured individual who had dual purposes, both recreational and nonrecreational, for being on the property at issue was still "engaged in a recreational activity" for purposes of the statute. There, Lasky filed a negligence claim against the City of Stevens Point for injuries he suffered when he fell on a wooden bridge in a city park. Id. at 3. On the day of his fall, Lasky parked his car at the city park and was walking on the trail in order to go to the bakery and to the barbershop, which were located near the park. Id. at 4. He admitted that he could have driven to the bakery and barbershop, but he parked his car at the park because he wanted to get some exercise while doing his errands. Id.

¶ 15. The circuit court dismissed his claim on the ground that the city was immune from suit pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 895.52. Lasky, 220 Wis. 2d at 3. On appeal, Lasky contended that he was not engaged in a recreational activity at the time of the accident because when he walked through the park, he was on his way to a bakery and a barbershop. Id. at 6. We concluded that Lasky was engaged in a recreational activity at the time of the accident, emphasizing that Lasky had walked through the park to get exercise. Id. at 10.

¶ 16. To support our conclusion we relied on our supreme court's decision in Sievert. There, the activity at issue was walking uninvited onto a neighbor's dock to greet the neighbor who was in a boat not far from the dock. Sievert, 190 Wis. 2d at 626. Our supreme court upheld the two lower courts' determinations that the activity was not recreational. Id. at 633. The court concluded that considering the nature and purpose of Sievert's activity, he was not engaged in a recreational activity: his objective behavior and his testimony showed that the sole reason for being on the dock was to greet his neighbor. See id.; see also Lasky, 220 Wis. 2d at 10. While the court recognized that "an activity can be both recreational under the statute and social," it concluded that Sievert's activity of walking to greet a neighbor was not a recreational activity. Sievert, 190 Wis. 2d at 633.

¶ 17. Applying Sievert to the facts in Lasky, we concluded that:

Lasky acknowledged that he was walking in the park to exercise, whereas in Sievert the sole purpose of walking on to the dock was to greet a neighbor, not a recreational purpose. The fact that Lasky had a purpose for his walk besides exercise — doing errands — does not, as the court in Sievert makes clear, mean that Lasky's walking cannot be a recreational activity.

Lasky, 220 Wis. 2d at 10.

¶ 18. Following the method of analysis established in Lasky, we conclude that the Kautzes were engaged in a recreational activity at the time of Brenna's injury. This court has repeatedly held that attendance at community fairs, like the Ozaukee County Fair, constitutes a recreational activity. See, e.g., Hall v. Turtle Lake Lions Club, 146 Wis. 2d 486, 488, 431 N.W.2d 696 (Ct. App. 1988) (holding that a fair sponsored by a local service club involved activities "substantially similar" to the statutory listing of "nature study," "sight-seeing" and other "educational activity," as to make it a recreational activity under Wis. Stat. § 895.52). Further, the Kautzes concede that one of their purposes for attending the fair was recreation— for Brenna to have fun and enjoy the experience of a fair. Andrew's account of their activities at the fair supports their concession. As Lasky teaches us, even though the Kautzes may have had a purpose for their attendance at the fair besides having fun and enjoying the fair offerings, this does not mean that their attendance at the fair cannot be recreational for purposes of the statute. As long as one of the purposes for engaging in the activity is recreation, as it concededly was here, the statute attaches and bars their claim.

¶ 19. The Kautzes argue that Lasky should not apply because Lasky, unlike the Kautzes, did not have "mixed motives" when he was on the city's property. They point out that in reaching our conclusion in Lasky, we emphasized that Lasky admitted that he only parked his car near the park and walked through the park so that he could get exercise, a purely recreational activity. Lasky, 220 Wis. 2d at 11. While we did not specifically use the phrase "mixed motives," the basic facts in Lasky demonstrate that Lasky had multiple purposes for walking through the park. Even though he did not have to, Lasky walked through the park not only to get exercise, but also to run his errands — to go to the bakery and the barbershop. We expressly recognized the dual nature of Lasky's purposes for being on the city's property in our above-quoted holding.

¶ 20. Furthermore, our application and interpretation of Lasky is consistent with the legislative intent of liberally construing the statute in favor of the landowner. It also furthers the legislative goal of encouraging landowners to open their land to the public: It prevents injured land users from defending against recreational immunity by claiming that he or she had only a secondary intent to recreate and thereby accords landowners a degree of certainty regarding their potential liability for injuries occurring on their land.

¶ 21. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Wis. Stat. § 895.52 affords the Agricultural Society immunity from the Kautzes' personal injury action. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Agricultural Society.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

       All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: NETTESHEIM, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Commercial Mortgage & Finance Co., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clerk of the Circuit Court, Walworth County, Sheila T. Reiff, and Cotswold Trading Company Limited, a Foreign Corporation, Defendants-Respondents.
    Court of Appeals

      No. 03-3338.

      Submitted on briefs September 9, 2004.

    Decided September 29, 2004.

    2004 WI App 204
    (Also reported in 689 N.W.2d 74.)

      On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Karl F. Winkler, Esq. of Oliver, Close, Worden, Winkler & Greenwald of Rockford, Illinois.
    On behalf of the defendants-respondents, the cause was submitted on the brief of Charles H. Bohl, Barbara J. Janaszek, and James B Denis III, of Whyte, Hirsch-boeck, Dudek, S.C. of Milwaukee.
    Before Anderson, PJ., Nettesheim and Snyder, JJ.
   NETTESHEIM, J.

¶ 1. Commercial Mortgage & Finance Co. (Commercial) appeals from a trial court order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing Commercial's complaint against Sheila T. Reiff, the clerk of the Walworth County Circuit Court. Commercial contends that the clerk violated a mandatory, ministerial duty set out in Wis. Stat. § 806.10(1) (2001-02) by failing to include the address of Commercial's judgment debtor, Linda Frykholm, when the clerk entered Commercial's judgment against Frykholm on the judgment docket. Because the judgment submitted by Commercial did not provide Frykholm's address, the trial court ruled that the clerk did not have the duty to search for the address and to include it in the judgment docket. We uphold this ruling.

¶ 2. We also address two of Commercial's alternative arguments. First, Commercial argues that the clerk was also obligated to enter the foreclosure judgment it had earlier obtained against Frykholm on the judgment docket. Second, Commercial challenges the trial court's disposition of the matter via the clerk's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Commercial contends that matters beyond the scope of the pleadings were introduced at the hearing on the motion, thus converting the motion to one of summary judgment which presented material issues of fact warranting a trial. We reject both of these alternative arguments. We affirm the order dismissing Commercial's complaint.

BACKGROUND

¶ 3. Frykholm's criminal scam spawned this appeal. Before we set out the particular facts of this case, we quote from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Frykholm, 362 F.3d 413, 414-15 (7th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 2004 WL 2071399 (Oct. 12, 2004), which speaks in colorful terms about Frykholm, a con artist who may not equal Victor Lustig, but would give him a run for his money:

Frykholm must have the tongue of an angel, though she has the morals of a fiend. She persuaded people to invest $15 million in a get-rich-quick scheme, even though the promises she made were transparently too good to be true (100% return in a month) and she had no means to back her promises. Her only relevant credential was a 1994 conviction for theft and forgery, which she did not tout; her "business address" was a mail drop; routine inquiry would have disclosed that the corporations though which she purported to do business did not exist and that Illinois securities officials had entered a stop order against her promotions. Her persuasiveness was augmented, however, by the staple ingredient of any Ponzi scheme: the first generation of investors was handsomely rewarded with money being raised from the next generation, and these ecstatic clients became her avid promoters. Yet collapse was inevitable. The system works only while each new generation of investors puts in at least twice as much as the last, and exponential growth cannot last: after a few doublings there aren't enough suckers left in the whole world. When Frykholm's scam imploded she had net receipts of about $10 million (having taken in $15 million and paid out $5 million), of which prosecutors have been able to locate some $4 million; the rest either was devoted to living the high life or has been hidden someplace from which Frykholm hopes to retrieve it after her release .... Forfeiture of all assets traceable to the scam's proceeds is part of Frykholm's sentence, and the United States plans to use these assets to make restitution to victims....

¶ 4. With that backdrop, we turn to the extensive, but undisputed, facts of this case. On March 2, 2004, Commercial commenced a foreclosure action against Frykholm's Walworth County property. The complaint alleged that Frykholm was in arrears on a debt owed to Commercial in the amount of $411,386.30. Frykholm did not contest the action and a judgment of foreclosure was entered on June 13,1994. The ensuing sheriffs sale did not produce proceeds sufficient to satisfy the debt. Therefore, the circuit court entered a deficiency judgment against Frykholm on October 31, 1994, in the amount of $105,836.99. The judgment, prepared by Commercial's attorneys, did not recite Frykholm's address.

¶ 5. The following day, November 1, 1994, Reiff, the Walworth county clerk of courts, docketed the judgment against Frykholm, indicating all of the information required by Wis. Stat. § 806.10(1) except Frykholm's address.

¶ 6. Thereafter, in January 1999, Frykholm acquired other real estate in Walworth County using a fictitious name. Later, in November 1999, she executed a mortgage on this property to Cotswold Trading Company, Ltd. (Cotswold) in the amount of $2,200,000. In March 2000, Cotswold commenced a foreclosure action against this property resulting in a foreclosure judgment against Frykholm in August 2000. Cotswold purchased the property at a foreclosure sale in November 2000.

¶ 7. During this same period of time, the United States government was pursuing a criminal action for wire fraud and money laundering against Frykholm, who pled guilty to the charges on August 31, 2000. As a result, a preliminary order of forfeiture in favor of the government was filed on September 1, 2000. This order preceded Cotswold's purchase of the property at foreclosure sale. Commercial, which later joined the forfeiture action as a party, challenged the forfeiture, asserting a priority claim to the property based on its 1994 deficiency judgment against Frykholm and the docketing of the judgment on the judgment docket. The government opposed Commercial's challenge, contending that the docketing of the judgment did not create an enforceable lien because the docket entry did not include Frykholm's address. The federal district court ruled against Commercial and forfeited the property to the government subject to Cotswold's priority interest by virtue of its foreclosure judgment.

¶ 8. On November 26, 2002, Commercial served a Notice of Claim upon Walworth County alleging that the clerk of circuit court had failed to perform her statutory duty pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 806.10(1) by failing to include Frykholm's address when entering Commercial's deficiency judgment on the judgment docket. Walworth County denied the claim. In response, Commercial commenced the instant action on May 12, 2003, against the clerk. As with the Notice of Claim, Commercial's complaint alleged that the clerk had failed to perform her ministerial statutory duty by failing to include Frykholm's address in the judgment docket. The clerk moved for judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of Commercial's complaint. In support, the clerk argued that she was not required under the statute to include the judgment debtor's address in the judgment docket since the judgment submitted by Commercial did not provide that information. The circuit court agreed and dismissed Commercial's complaint. Commercial appeals.

DISCUSSION

The Clerk's Duty Under Wis. Stat. § 806.10(1)

¶ 9. The first issue we address is whether Wis. Stat. § 806.10(1) creates a ministerial duty on the part of the clerk of circuit court to include the address of the judgment creditor on the judgment docket when the judgment does not provide that information. We review this issue under the de novo standard of review on two levels. First, a motion for judgment on the pleadings presents a question of law, a matter we review de novo. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Thompson, 164 Wis. 2d 736, 741, 476 N.W.2d 318 (Ct. App. 1991). Second, the issue presents a question of statutory construction, which also presents a question of law. State v. Morford, 2004 WI 5, ¶ 19, 268 Wis. 2d 300, 674 N.W.2d 349. Although we owe no deference to the trial court's ruling involving questions of law, we nonetheless benefit from the court's analysis of such issues. Scheunemann v. City of West Bend, 179 Wis. 2d 469, 475, 507 N.W.2d 163 (Ct. App. 1993).

¶ 10. A judgment on the pleadings is essentially a summary judgment minus affidavits and other supporting documents. Thus, a motion for judgment on the pleadings contemplates the first two steps of summary judgment methodology. We first examine the complaint to determine whether a claim has been stated. If so, we then turn to the responsive pleading to determine whether material factual issues exist. Schuster v. Altenberg, 144 Wis. 2d 223, 228, 424 N.W.2d 159 (1988).

¶ 11. Wisconsin Stat. § 806.10 sets out the clerk's duties when docketing a judgment. It states in relevant part:

(1) At the time of entry of a judgment directing in whole or in part the payment of money... the clerk of circuit court shall enter judgment in the judgment and lien docket... including all of the following:
(a) The full name and place of residence of each judgment debtor.... If the judgment or judgment and lien docket fails to give the place of residence of the judgment debtor... the validity of the judgment is not affected thereby, but the judgment creditor may at any time file with the clerk of circuit court an affidavit stating, on knowledge or information and belief, the information. The clerk of circuit court shall thereupon enter the facts according to the affidavit in the judgment and lien docket, noting the date and time of the entry.
(b) The name of the judgment creditor, in like manner.
(c) The name of the attorney for the judgment creditor, if stated in the record.
(d) The date of the entry of the judgment.
(e) The day and time of entry.
(f) The amount of the debt, damages or other sum of money recovered, with the costs.

(Emphasis added.)

¶ 12. Since the statute uses the mandatory word "shall," Commercial argues that the clerk has a ministerial and mandatory duty to enter all of the information set out in the statutory subsections in the judgment docket, including the address of the judgment creditor as prescribed by Wis. Stat. § 806.10(l)(a). Commercial argues that the clerk is liable even though the judgment it tendered to the clerk failed to provide Frykholm's address. Despite its own failing, Commercial argues that the clerk could have easily complied with the statute since Frykholm's address was noted some nine times in the record of the foreclosure case.

¶ 13. Although Commercial does not directly cite to the law of governmental immunity, we presume its effort to find a ministerial duty in Wis. Stat. § 806.10(1) is based upon the exception to such immunity for "the performance of ministerial duties imposed by law." Lodi v. Progressive N Ins. Co., 2002 WI 71, ¶ 24, 253 Wis. 2d 323, 646 N.W.2d 314. See also Wis. Stat. § 893.80(4) (immunizing governmental "acts done in the exercise of legislative, quasi-legislative, judicial or quasi-judicial functions.").

¶ 14. We reject Commercial's argument for three separate reasons. First, in construing Wis. Stat. § 806.10(1), Commercial relies on selective portions of the statute without giving due consideration to other relevant portions. "[C]ourts must look not at a single, isolated sentence or portion of a sentence." Highland Manor Assocs. v. Bast, 2003 WI 152, ¶ 9, 268 Wis. 2d 1, 672 N.W.2d 709 (citation omitted). Instead, we must look to the "relevant language of the entire statute." Id. "[A] statutory provision must be read in the context of the whole statute to avoid an unreasonable or absurd interpretation. Statutes relating to the same subject matter should be read together and harmonized when possible." Id.

¶ 15. If we limited our consideration of the statute to just the words mandating that the clerk include the judgment debtor's address in the judgment docket, we perhaps could conclude that the clerk's duty is mandatory even if the judgment did not provide that information. But the statute goes on to address the very scenario presented by this case — the failure of the judgment creditor to include the address of the judgment debtor in the judgment. In that situation, the judgment creditor may correct the omission by filing an affidavit with the clerk providing the missing information. The clerk, in turn, must then enter that information on the judgment docket. Construing the statute as a whole and recognizing the entire statutory scheme as it pertains to the address of the judgment debtor, we conclude that it is the judgment creditor who has the responsibility to provide the clerk with the judgment debtor's address. The creditor may do this by initially providing such information in the judgment or by later providing the information via the affidavit procedure.

¶ 16. Second, our interpretation of the statute conforms to the usual and accepted procedure relating to the preparation and submission of judgments. Typically, the prevailing party prepares the judgment. Wisconsin Stat. § 806.06(4) states, "A judgment may be rendered and entered at the instance of any party either before or after perfection." Wisconsin Stat. § 806.01(l)(b) states, "Each judgment shall specify the relief granted or other deter-urination of the action, and the name and place of residence of each party to the action." (Emphasis added.) If the prevailing party fails to include this requisite information in the judgment, the clerk should not be burdened to do that party's work, much less be held hable to that party for fairing to do so.

¶ 17. Third, Wis. Stat. § 806.10(3) requires that the clerk enter a judgment on the judgment docket "at the proper time." In South Milwaukee Savings Bank v. Barrett, 2000 WI 48, ¶ 27, 234 Wis. 2d 733, 611 N.W.2d 448, our supreme court held that the phrase "at the proper time" "means docketing [the judgment] immediately upon entry of judgment." (Emphasis added.) While the facts of this case suggest that the clerk might have been able to immediately docket the judgment because Frykholm's address was recited in the record, such might not be so in another case under different facts. For instance, if the record reveals different addresses or no address for the judgment creditor, the time required for the clerk to sort out such uncertainty or to conduct a search for the current address of the judgment debtor might well frustrate the clerk's ability to "immediately" docket the judgment, rendering the clerk liable under the statute. We decline to interpret the statute in a fashion that allows for such an unreasonable and unfair result. When engaging in statutory construction, we are entitled to consider, together with other factors, the consequences of alternative interpretations of the statute at issue. Morford, 268 Wis. 2d 300, ¶ 21. In all cases we are obligated to construe statutes in a manner that avoids absurd or unreasonable results. Town of Avon v. Oliver, 2002 WI App 97, ¶ 7, 253 Wis. 2d 647, 644 N.W.2d 260.

¶ 18. We hold that Wis. Stat. § 806.10(1) does not impose a ministerial duty on a clerk of circuit court to include the address of a judgment debtor on the judgment docket when the judgment does not include such information.

The Clerk's Duty to Docket the Foreclosure Judgment

¶ 19. Commercial also argues that the clerk of circuit court further violated Wis. Stat. § 806.10(1) by failing to docket the foreclosure judgment, which preceded the deficiency judgment. We summarily reject this argument. Section 806.10(1) expressly applies to "a judgment directing in whole or in part the payment of money." While the judgment of foreclosure indicates an amount due to Commercial from Frykholm, it does not direct or order the payment of any money. To the contrary, the judgment only orders the foreclosure or redemption of the property. Moreover, the foreclosure judgment anticipates the future entry of a deficiency judgment ordering the payment of money in the event the proceeds of the sheriffs sale did not satisfy the amount due to Commercial. Thus, the ensuing deficiency judgment, not the foreclosure judgment, constituted the only judgment eligible for docketing under § 806.10(1).

Propriety of Judgment on the Pleadings

¶ 20. Finally, Commercial contends that the parties introduced additional material beyond the scope of the pleadings at the hearing on the clerk's motion for judgment on the pleadings. As such, Commercial contends that the motion was converted to one of summary judgment and that the added information created material issues of fact warranting further proceedings or a trial.

¶ 21. We also summarily reject this argument. As we have noted, a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the equivalent of a summary judgment motion minus affidavits and other supporting documents. Schuster, 144 Wis. 2d at 228. Also as noted, the first step in the methodology under either motion is to determine whether the complaint states a claim for relief. As we have already determined, Commercial's complaint states no such claim. Therefore, whether the clerk's motion is construed as one for judgment on the pleadings or as one for summary judgment, Commercial's complaint fails to pass muster.

CONCLUSION

¶ 22. We hold that the trial court properly adjudicated this matter via a motion for judgment on the pleadings and that the court correctly ruled that Commercial's complaint failed to state a claim for relief. We affirm the order dismissing Commercial's complaint.

By the Court. — Order affirmed.

       All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted.

       Wisconsin Stat. § 806.10(1) is entitled "Judgment and lien docket." In this opinion we refer to the docket as the "judgment docket."

       Victor Lustig successfully sold the Eiffel Tower — twice! Floyd Milled, The Man Who sold the Eiffel Tower (1961).

       The foreclosure action also named Frykholm's husband as a defendant.

       Cotswold Trading Company, Ltd. was one of Frykholm's victims, having made an initial investment of $100,000 which was to be doubled and repaid within thirty-five days. Frykholm failed to make this payment. Proving that a sucker is born every minute, Cotswold invested another $1 million after Frykholm promised to pay $2 million in thirteen days. When this payment was not made, Cotswold "reinvested" the promised but unpaid $2 million in exchange for Frykholm's promise to pay $4 million within fifteen banking days. United States v. Frykholm, 362 F.3d 413, 415 (7th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 2004 WL 2071399 (Oct. 12, 2004). Frykholm also failed to make this payment. Id.

       Title to all forfeitable assets vests in the United States as soon as criminal proceeds are invested; a judgment of forfeiture confirms that this has occurred. See 21 U.S.C. § 853(a) (2004). However, the statute protects the interests of a bona fide purchaser for value who acquires an interest in such property between the date of the forfeiture and the date of the judgment and who did not have reasonable cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture. Frykholm, 362 F.3d at 416.

       Commercial's complaint also alleged claims against Cotswold. Those matters are not before us on this appeal.

       Because of some concern about the wording of the dismissal order, the clerk sought to vacate the order. The circuit court granted this request and conducted a further hearing on the matter. At this hearing, the court confirmed its previous ruling and entered the order of dismissal that is the subject of this appeal.

       The clerk also argues that Commercial's action is barred by Wis. Stat. § 806.10(3), which limits an action against a clerk to instances where: (1) the clerk incorrectly enters the date or time of the judgment in the judgment docket; or (2) the clerk fails to enter the judgment in the judgment docket at the proper time. The clerk reasons that the legislature's failure to include instances where the clerk has failed to recite the address of the judgment debtor in the judgment docket as additional grounds for civil liability reflects a legislative decision to bar such actions. However, the clerk overlooks that Commercial is contending that the clerk's duty is ministerial. Such acts are not covered by the governmental immunity provisions of Wis. Stat, § 893.80(4). We read § 806.10(3) as speaking to discretionary acts of the clerk and to carve out exceptions against government immunity only in the two instances recited.

       Since we hold on a threshold basis that Commercial has not stated a claim for relief against the clerk, we need not address the clerk's further argument that Commercial's action is nonetheless barred by the statute of limitations and Commercial's rejoinder that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the forfeiture proceedings when Commercial first discovered that the clerk had not included the judgment debtor's address in the judgment docket. Nor need we address the parties' debate as to whether Commercial timely served its Notice of Claim on the clerk.

       The clerk argues that this issue is waived because Commercial first raised it as an allegation in an amended complaint filed after the trial court had ruled with finality on the clerk's motion for judgment on the pleadings. While the court allowed the filing of the amended complaint, Commercial never asked the court to conduct any further proceedings under the amended complaint. Therefore we have no trial court ruling on the question. Nonetheless, we choose to address the issue on the merits.

       WISCONSIN Stat. § 802.06(3) recognizes that a motion for judgment on the pleadings is converted to a motion for summary judgment if matters not covered by the pleadings are presented to the trial court.

       Commercial also contends that the dismissal of its complaint via judgment on the pleadings was improper because the clerk raised contributory negligence as an affirmative defense in her answer. Commercial reasons that the assertion of such a defense required a trial on the question of the parties' comparative negligence. We disagree. We know of no law that precludes a motion for judgment on the pleadings simply because the moving party also has asserted an affirmative defense. Were the law otherwise, the parties and the circuit court would have to endure an unnecessary trial on a claim for which relief could not be granted.


author: N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.

text:
    Meriter Hospital, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Dane County, Defendant-Respondent-Cross-Appellant.
    Supreme Court

      No. 02-2837.

      Oral argument September 22, 2004.

    Decided December 7, 2004.

    2004 WI 145
    (Also reported in 689 N.W.2d 627.)

      For the plaintiff-appellant-cross-respondent-petitioner there were briefs by John Walsh, Guy DuBeau and
      Axley Brynelson, LLP, Madison, and oral argument by Guy DuBeau.

    For the defendant-respondent-cross-appellant there was a brief and oral argument by Kristi A. Gullen, assistant corporation counsel.
    An amicus curiae brief was filed by Laura J. Leitch, Madison, on behalf of Wisconsin Hospital Association, Inc.
    An amicus curiae brief was filed by Andrew T. Phillips, Evan N. Claditis and Prentice & Phillips LLP, Milwaukee, on behalf of Wisconsin Counties Association.
   N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.

¶ 1. The petitioner, Meriter Hospital (Meriter), seeks review of a published decision of the court of appeals, Meriter Hospital, Inc. v. Dane County, 2003 WI App 248, 268 Wis. 2d 658, 673 N.W.2d 328, affirming the circuit court of Dane County, Judge Gerald C. Nichol presiding. The issues we address are, first, whether Wis. Stat. § 302.38 (2001-02) requires the respondent, Dane County, to pay all of the medical and hospital bills incurred on behalf of an indigent prisoner, Michael Gibson (Gibson), who was a prisoner in the Dane County jail upon admittance to the hospital, but had the criminal charges pending against him dismissed on the third day of his extended hospitalization, after his parole hold had also been lifted. Second, we determine whether the Dane County Sheriff complied with his statutory obligations under Wis. Stat. §§ 59.27(1) and 302.38(1).

¶ 2. We conclude that the plain reading of Wis. Stat. § 302.38 does not require Dane County (County) to pay for all of the medical and hospital bills of Gibson, an indigent prisoner, once the parole hold had been cancelled and the circuit court had granted the motion of the State of Wisconsin (State) to dismiss the pending charges against him. Gibson lost his prisoner status and was no longer "held" under the criminal laws of Wisconsin, when the circuit court dismissed the charges. We also conclude that Gibson's status did not change when the Department of Corrections issued an apprehension request for him. This request to bring Gibson into custody only had the effect of making him a "potential prisoner," and did not render him "held under the state criminal laws or for contempt of court," as set forth in § 302.38(2). In so holding, we decline to expand the County's liability under § 302.38(1) and require it to pay for all of Gibson's care.

¶ 3. Finally, we conclude that the Dane County Sheriff met his statutory obligations in dealing with Gibson. The sheriff kept the prisoner secure, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 59.27(1), while Gibson was "held under the state criminal laws." Additionally, we hold that the sheriff met the "appropriate care" standard under Wis. Stat. § 302.38(1). Thus, we affirm the court of appeals.

HH

¶ 4. The relevant facts of this case are not in dispute. Michael Gibson, an indigent inmate at the Dane County jail, became gravely ill on December 16, 1998, and was transported by the sheriff to Meriter Hospital. Meriter's staff treated Gibson for a bacterial infection and septic shock, leading to multi-organ dysfunction failure. The parties agree that he likely would have died within 24 hours had he not received proper medical attention, and that all treatment rendered was necessary.

¶ 5. Gibson was treated at Meriter for 34 days. Because he was in custody for a parole violation and as a result of pending criminal charges, it was necessary that a deputy provide security outside of Gibson's hospital room 24 hours per day. The total cost for Gibson's care and treatment at Meriter, not including the overtime pay for the security provided, amounted to $187,569.37.

¶ 6. During the first three days of Gibson's hospitalization, the sheriff informed the Dane County prosecutor and Gibson's parole officer that Gibson had been hospitalized. On December 17, 1998, the Wisconsin Division of Community Corrections issued a cancellation of the order to detain. Gibson. The State then moved to dismiss the charges against Gibson on December 18, 1998. The Deputy District Attorney, Judy Schwaemle, indicated in her motion that the decision to drop the charges was based on Gibson's grave illness, and that it was no longer in the public interest to maintain the prosecution against him on charges of resisting or obstructing an officer. The circuit court, Judge Patrick J. Fiedler presiding, granted the motion and dismissed Gibson's pending criminal charges and ordered his release from custody.

¶ 7. On December 17, 1998, the Department of Corrections issued an apprehension request that, among other things, directed Meriter to contact either the Dane County Sheriff or a probation agent, so that Gibson could be returned to custody after his release from the hospital. On January 14, Meriter contacted the sheriff to inform him of Gibson's proposed release date, pursuant to the apprehension request. When Gibson finally left the hospital on January 18,1999, the sheriff did not act on the apprehension request and take him into custody, until several weeks after his release from Meriter.

¶ 8. With respect to the correct payment methodology, both parties agree that Wis. Stat. § 302.38 controls this review, that Gibson was an indigent prisoner when he was admitted to the hospital, and that Meriter may recoup from Dane County at least some of the costs of Gibson's hospital care. The total hospital bill for Gibson's 34-day stay amounted to $187,569.37. In response to this bill, Dane County paid Meriter $4,463.26, based on the discharge rate established by the State's fiscal agent for the medical assistance program. This amount was for the three days of Gibson's treatment during which the County conceded that he was formally "held." By contrast, Meriter claims that under the terms of § 302.38(3), it is owed the amount payable for the entirety of Gibson's stay under the Medical Assistance provisions of Wis. Stat. ch. 49, subch. IV

¶ 9. Meriter bases its reimbursement expectations on a calculation method known as the Diagnostic Related Group (DRG) rate, determined by the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services. Under this methodology, providers are paid a set fee based on the diagnosis of the individual patient. That set fee can be increased when actual costs exceed a certain threshold. As noted, the actual costs for Gibson's treatment were $187,569.37, which brings this matter past the applicable threshold. Based on the DRG amount, before allowing the increase caused by exceeding the threshold, the payments due for Gibson's treatment would be $74,847.92.

¶ 10. Meriter filed a complaint against the County to compel increased compensation for Gibson's bill for his treatment. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to Meriter on the issue of payment methodology, ruling that Meriter was entitled to receive payment at the DRG rate under Wis. Stat. ch. 49, subch. IV The rest of Meriter's motion for summary judgment was denied. A trial was held on April 18, 2002, and the circuit court ruled that "the County [was] liable to Meriter for Gibson's hospital costs only up to the time the pending charges were dismissed and the parole hold dropped." The court also held that the apprehension request did not alter Gibson's status. The circuit court determined that Gibson would be "held" for only the purposes of Wis. Stat. § 302.38 if the sheriff took him into custody.

¶ 11. The Court of Appeals, District IX in an opinion by Judge Charles R Dykman, affirmed, holding that the County was not liable for Gibson's treatment costs which were incurred after the parole hold was dropped and the charges against him were dismissed, since he was no longer "held" under Wis. Stat. § 302.38. The court also determined that Gibson was not "otherwise detained" under Wis. Stat.. § 301.01, and that an apprehension request did not affect his status once the charges pending against him were dropped. Finally, the court of appeals decided that the County must pay Meriter according to the DRG rate, rather than the discharge rate, but prorated that amount to include only the three days in which Gibson received care. The County appealed the DRG payment issue, but we denied review. Accordingly, we decline to address it further.

H-1

¶ 12. We first address whether Wis. Stat. § 302.38 requires the County to pay for the medical and hospital bills of an indigent prisoner, if he or she is no longer "held under the state criminal laws." Wis. Stat. § 302.38(2). The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Williams, 198 Wis. 2d 516, 525, 544 N.W.2d 406 (1996). Although we consider this question independent of the decisions of the circuit court and the court of appeals, we nevertheless benefit from their analyses. Meyer v. Sch. Dist. of Colby, 226 Wis. 2d 704, 708, 595 N.W.2d 339 (1999).

¶ 13. When interpreting a statute, the primary objective "is to determine what the statute means so that it may be given its full, proper, and intended effect." State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court, 2004 WI 58, ¶ 44, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. Knowing this, the court's analysis should begin with the plain language of the statutory text. Id., ¶ 45. If the language of the statute is clear on its face, the court should apply the statute using the common and generally accepted meanings of the terms. Fox v. Catholic Knights Ins. Soc., 2003 WI 87, ¶ 19, 263 Wis. 2d 207, 665 N.W.2d 181. With an unambiguous statute, the court need not consult extrinsic sources of interpretation. Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶ 46; Bruno v. Milwaukee County, 2003 WI 28, ¶ 7, 260 Wis. 2d 633, 660 N.W.2d 656.

¶ 14. Meriter asserts that the court of appeals incorrectly interpreted Wis. Stat. § 302.38(2). It states that the phrase in the statute, "held under the state criminal laws," is ambiguous, and could be reasonably interpreted to freeze the County's obligation to pay for a prisoner upon his admittance to the hospital. In support, Meriter argues that § 302.38(2) "does nothing to identify temporal limitations, i.e., when it is that the prisoner must be 'held;1 the subsection only identifies who must pay." Meriter also contends that the court of appeals misinterpreted the legislature's use of the word "held." It argues that "held" was inserted by the legislature in the past tense, because the legislature intended that there be a contemporaneous holding of a prisoner as a prerequisite for liability, but that once established, liability continues even if the status changes.

¶ 15. We agree with the court of appeals and conclude that Wis. Stat. § 302.38 is unambiguous. We interpret the plain meaning of the statute's language, and conclude that Gibson was "held under the state criminal laws," as set forth in § 302.38(2), for only the first three days he was at Meriter. The statute places payment obligations on the County for only the periods of time during which an indigent prisoner has criminal charges pending against him or her or is held for contempt of court. We conclude that the legislature inserted the word "held" to modify the class of prisoners for whom the County is liable for medical and hospital bills. Dane County has argued that "held" is both the past tense and past participle of "hold," and that a participle, in its most common use, acts as an adjective. Consistent with that approach, the correct grammatical interpretation of this statute, therefore, would be that the legislature used the term "held" to describe those persons who are indigent prisoners. Applying that grammatical methodology here, we conclude that § 302.38(2) requires a contemporaneous holding of the prisoner, in order to hold the County liable for the medical and hospital costs incurred. A change of status has a direct bearing on whether such liability continues.

¶ 16. We also decline to accept Meriter's argument that we should, in effect, expand the interpretation of "held" to include an apprehension request. Meriter argues that Gibson did not lose his prisoner status under Wis. Stat. § 302.38, after his charges were dismissed and the parole hold dropped, because he was still a prisoner, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 301.01(2). It claims that the issuance of the apprehension request "otherwise detained" Gibson in the hospital, because the sheriff was supposed to take him into custody upon his release from Meriter. We agree with the court of appeals that Gibson lost his status as a prisoner when the circuit court dismissed the pending criminal charges, after the parole hold was cancelled.

¶ 17. An apprehension request is not the same as a detention of Gibson by the sheriff. This request, at best, made Gibson a "potential prisoner," dependent on whether the sheriff acted on the request. In this case, the sheriff did not bring Gibson back into custody. The hospital had contacted the sheriff with information concerning Gibson's expected release in accord with the apprehension request, but the sheriff did not apprehend him upon his release from Meriter.

¶ 18. When interpreting Wis. Stat. § 301.01, we cannot expand the scope of the statute, as requested by Meriter, simply because it includes the phrase "otherwise detained." "[W]here a general term ... is preceded or followed by a series of specific terms, the general term is viewed as being limited to items of the same type or nature as those specifically enumerated." State v. Campbell, 102 Wis. 2d 243, 246, 306 N.W.2d 272 (Ct. App. 1981) (citations omitted). In § 301.01, the term prisoner is defined as a person who is either "arrested, incarcerated, imprisoned or otherwise detained.. . ." Therefore, the correct interpretation of that statute involves limiting the phrase "otherwise detained" so as to coincide with the preceding terms: arrested, incarcerated, and imprisoned. A pending apprehension request, by itself, does not result in a person being "held."

¶ 19. This interpretation is consistent with the holding in State v. Edwards, 2003 WI App 221, 267 Wis. 2d 491, 671 N.W.2d 371. In that case, Edwards made repeated trips to the hospital, while serving a jail sentence. He filed a motion seeking confinement credit for the time he was receiving care, because his sentence was stayed during the periods of hospitalization. He argued that he was "in custody" during his hospital stints and, as a result, should be allowed credit. The court of appeals held that while in the hospital, Edwards was not a prisoner for the purposes of Wis. Stat. § 302.38(1). Id.

¶ 20. The court of appeals correctly relied on Edwards and Wisconsin's escape statute, Wis. Stat. § 946.42(1)(a), to support its conclusion that Gibson was no longer "held" under the criminal laws of Wisconsin. The escape statute establishes that a probationer is still a prisoner if he or she is "in actual custody or is subject to a confinement order under s. 973.09(4)." Wis. Stat. § 946.42(l)(a). The court in Edwards, held that because the circuit court stayed his sentence, his confinement order did not apply during his time in the hospital. Therefore, Edwards was not in custody, and could not have been charged with escape, had he attempted to leave the hospital. Edwards, 267 Wis. 2d 491, ¶ 21. Similarly, in this case, the court of appeals stated: "Gibson was not in custody after the trial court dismissed the charges against him. The State could not have charged him with escape if he had left the hospital." Meriter Hosp., 268 Wis. 2d 658, ¶ 10. We agree that because the apprehension request did not result in Gibson being in custody, and thus "held," the County was not liable for his medical and hospital bills from Meriter beyond his third day of care.

Ill

¶ 21. We next address whether the sheriff breached any duties in his handling of Gibson's medical treatment. Meriter presents two arguments. First, it asserts that the sheriff violated his statutory responsibility under Wis. Stat. § 59.27(1), by seeking the release of a prisoner for medical reasons. Second, Meriter argues that the sheriff did not provide Gibson with "appropriate care" under Wis. Stat. § 302.38(1), because it sidestepped the statute's corresponding obligation to pay for that care.

¶ 22. We first consider whether the sheriff avoided his statutory obligation under Wis. Stat. § 59.27(1). Meriter contends that, as a result of this statute, the sheriff has a duty to keep prisoners in jail and no statutory authority to seek actively the release of a prisoner entrusted to him.

¶ 23. We are not persuaded by Meriter's arguments concerning Wis. Stat. § 59.27(1). Meriter presents nothing that suggests the sheriff failed in his duty to secure Gibson. The fact that the sheriff no longer guarded Gibson after the parole hold was cancelled and the charges against him were dismissed, and then failed to take him into custody after he was released from the hospital, is not sufficient to establish a violation of § 59.27(1). Even if we assume that Meriter is correct in arguing that it was the sheriff that requested that the charges against Gibson be dismissed, we have found no statutory mandate that forbids the sheriff from seeking to have charges against a prisoner dropped. Accordingly, we hold that the sheriff did not violate his duty to secure prisoners in accord with § 59.27(1).

¶ 24. We next address whether the sheriff met his obligations to provide "appropriate care" under Wis. Stat. § 302.38(1). Meriter contends that the requisite care was not provided to Gibson, because the County did not pay for all of the care that was deemed "appropriate." It argues that subsections (1) and (2) should be read in pari materia, becausé any care provided under subsection (1) creates an obligation to pay for that care under subsection (2).

¶ 25. According to Wis. Stat. § 302.38(1), all sheriffs in Wisconsin are required to provide prisoners in their custody with "appropriate care or treatment." We previously determined in Swateck v. County of Dane, 192 Wis. 2d 47, 58, 531 N.W.2d 45 (1995), that the sheriff could meet his or her burden for "appropriate care" if his or her actions were "especially suitable, fitting or proper. ... " Id. at 61. We held that the legislature made this requirement mandatory on sheriffs by inserting the words "shall provide" into the statute. We also concluded that the use of the word "may" in the latter part of § 302.38(1) implied discretion. "[T]he legislature here recognized that although prisoners 'shall' be provided with appropriate medical care, sheriffs have the discretion or 'liberty' as to how to provide that care." Id. at 59.

¶ 26. The sheriff properly used his discretion in accord with Wis. Stat. § 302.38(1), in transferring Gibson to Meriter Hospital. All agree that Gibson likely would have died if he were not taken to the hospital. The question that we consider, then, is whether the sheriffs actions can be deemed appropriate, even though the County refuses to pay for all of the care that the hospital appropriately administered. Meriter argues that when the sheriff provides care by transferring an indigent prisoner to a hospital, the sheriff is taking the position that the transfer to the hospital satisfies his or her statutory obligation to provide "appropriate care." Meriter argues that because the sheriff would have had to pay for the costs of providing care to the prisoner in jail, he assumes responsibility for the costs of providing the "appropriate care" at the hospital.

¶ 27. We decline to adopt Meriter's interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 302.38(1). The statute, on its face, limits the financial responsibility of the County, by requiring it to pay for medical care only when a certain class of prisoners cannot pay— those persons "held under the state criminal laws or for contempt of court." Wis. Stat. § 302.38(2). The legislature also limited the County's costs by its reference to the medical assistance rates contained in Wis. Stat. subch. IV of ch. 49.

¶ 28. The clear statutory language limiting the County's financial liability does not allow us to accept Meriter's interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 302.38(1). By asking the court to expand the County's liability and require it to pay for essentially all of the care that results from treating an indigent prisoner, even after that person is no longer being "held," Meriter's expanded reading of the statute could lead to absurd results. If, for example, an indigent prisoner broke his leg while in a jail or house of correction, the sheriff or other custodian would provide "appropriate care" by transferring the prisoner to a hospital. If that prisoner is later released from custody, but continues necessary treatment for his broken leg, the county or other municipality involved would continue to be liable, if Meriter's argument were to be accepted. Any such indigent person arguably might be able to rely on the county or other municipality involved to pay for a lifetime of medical bills involving the broken leg even after release from custody. Such an interpretation would have far reaching ramifications, and would clearly exceed an appropriate interpretation of the statute.

¶ 29. Meriter's arguments are less than persuasive on an equitable basis in light of the fact that it did not seek any alternative remedies, in order to be compensated more fully for Gibson's bills. In Gibson's Progress Notes while at Meriter, dated January 14 and 15,1998, it is clear that the hospital had notice that the County planned to pay for only the first three days of Gibson's care. The note from January 14 stated:

Patient and Family Services phone call to Sargeant (sic) Vander Molen @ Dane County Jail. He reports patient is NOT a hold for Jail. Pt was released from custody on 12-18-98. Spoke w/ Rene Bain, Financial Coordinator, who reports Co. Jail is NOT paying for pt's Hospital stay as of 12-18-98. Pt has no health insurance, is self-pay. Will talk to pt regarding Interim Assistance through the county.

Meriter was aware of at least some of the funding options available to pay for a greater portion of the treatment provided to Gibson. It could have attempted to gather the necessary information and resources to ensure that Gibson would qualify for whatever assistance was available to him. At the very least, Meriter could have taken some responsibility itself to check out other sources of payment, rather than sending the County a bill for Gibson's entire 34-day hospitalization.

IV

¶ 30. Meriter next argues that we should incorporate medical assistance law into our interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 302.38. According to § 302.38(3), "[t]he maximum amount that a governmental unit may pay for the costs of medical care or hospital care under this section is limited for that care to the amount payable by medical assistance under subch. IV of ch. 49.... " Meriter asserts that by means of this language, the legislature intended that municipalities, including counties, must pay the health care providers for indigent prisoner care the same amount that those health care providers would have received for treating medical assistance patients.

¶ 31. In response to Meriter's argument, the County argues that reference to ch. 49 in the statute appears to serve merely as an upper limit for the County's financial responsibility. We are satisfied that if the legislature had intended that the amount counties pay for indigent prisoners be equal with what the health care provider receives under medical assistance laws, it could have clearly said so in the statute, and it did not do so. We have already held that Wis. Stat. § 302.38 is unambiguous, and we conclude that there is no language in the statute requiring that regulations from the medical assistance program be applied in the manner Meriter desires.

¶ 32. Relying on a medical assistance law approach, Meriter also contends the County should be liable for all of the days Gibson was hospitalized, because liability under medical assistance attaches on a person's arrival at the hospital, and is not contingent upon any future events. Such an argument ignores the plain meaning of the statute, and again attempts to read into the reference to ch. 49 much more than is appropriate.

V

¶ 33. Finally, we address Meriter's policy argument that if we affirm the court of appeals, we will open the floodgates to prisoner dumping by county jails across the state.

¶ 34. We note, again, that the process of dismissing criminal charges does not lie with the sheriff. In this case, while the sheriff may have brought to the district attorney's attention the fact that Gibson was seriously ill and hospitalized in intensive care, the decision to move to dismiss the pending criminal charges was not made by the. sheriff or the County, but by the district attorney. It was the circuit court that granted that motion.

¶ 35. If the result in this case seems harsh, redress should come from the legislature, not from this court. "If a statute fails to cover a particular situation, and the omission should be cured, the remedy lies with the legislature, not the courts." La Crosse Hosp. v. La Crosse, 133 Wis. 2d 335, 338, 395 N.W.2d 612 (Ct. App. 1986) (citations omitted).

VI

¶ 36. In sum, we conclude that Dane County is not liable to Meriter for Gibson's medical and hospital bills for the period after his parole hold had been cancelled and the criminal charges against him had been dismissed. We apply the plain meaning of Wis. Stat. § 302.38(2), and determine that Gibson was not "held under the state's criminal laws or for contempt of court" beyond the third day of his hospital stay at Meriter. We also conclude that Gibson's status did not change when the Department of Corrections issued an apprehension request for him.

¶ 37. Additionally, we hold that the sheriff met all requisite statutory obligations. Gibson was provided with security pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 59.27 while he was considered a prisoner, and was provided with "appropriate care" when he was transferred from the jail to the hospital, as required under Wis. Stat. § 302.38(1). The County does not have an obligation to pay for all of the care that was provided to Gibson.

By the Court. — The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.

       All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted.

       Wisconsin Stat. § 302.38 provides, in relevant part:

        Medical care of prisoners. (1) If a prisoner needs medical or hospital care ... [the] superintendent or other keeper of the jail or house of correction shall provide appropriate care or treatment and may transfer the prisoner to a hospital... making provision for the security of the prisoner. ...
      (2) The prisoner is hable for the costs of medical and hospital care outside of the jail or house of correction. If the prisoner is unable to pay the costs, the county shall pay the costs in the case of persons held under the state criminal laws or for contempt of court....
      (3) The maximum amount that a governmental unit may pay for the costs of medical or hospital care under this section is limited for that care to the amount payable by medical assistance under subch. IV of ch. 49....

       All references to "sheriff' herein include the sheriff, all deputies, and other personnel that are under the control of the Dane County Sheriff. The sheriff at the time these matters occurred was Gaiy H. Hamblin.

       Under Wis. Stat. § 302.38(1), the sheriff is required to make "provision for the security of the prisoner." In this case, it was argued that the sheriff could not reduce the level of staffing within the jail to provide guard coverage, so that many of the deputies were forced to work overtime, in order to provide security while Gibson was hospitalized.

       On February 8, 1999, the police were called to Gibson's home for a noise complaint. There was no ticket issued or charges filed, but because of his outstanding apprehension request in the system, the police took Gibson to the Dane County jail. While at the jail, Gibson's apprehension request was cancelled, and he was released.

       Wisconsin Stat. § 301.01(2) provides, in part: " 'Prisoner' means any person who is either arrested, incarcerated, imprisoned or otherwise detained in excess of 12 hours by any law enforcement agency of this state ...."

       The court of appeals declined to evaluate and analyze these arguments. It concluded that 'Wisconsin Stat. § 302.38 does not consider the State's or the sheriffs motives; we will not presume as much when applying this unambiguous statute." Meriter Hosp. v. Dane County, 2003 WI App 248, ¶ 12, 268 Wis. 2d 658, 673 N.W.2d 328.

       Wisconsin Stat. § 59.27(1) provides, in relevant part:
      "The sheriff of a county shall do all of the following:
      (1) Take the charge and custody of the jail maintained by the county and the persons in the jail, and keep the persons in the jail personally or by a deputy or jailer."

       Meriter was in no position to argue that the State erroneously exercised its discretion in moving to dismiss the criminal charges pending against Gibson, nor that the circuit judge did so by granting the motion.

       We note that after the parole hold was lifted and the charges pending against Gibson were dismissed by the circuit court, that those charges were not refiled. It is also important to note, again, that upon Gibson's discharge from Meriter, the sheriff did not act on the apprehension request and take Gibson into custody until several weeks later. Had the sheriff acted on the apprehension request immediately after Gibson's discharge from Meriter, and had the dismissed charges been refiled, certainly Meriter's position would be much stronger.