A recent appellate decision has confirmed that a local bank acted within its rights when it repossessed a borrower’s vehicle after loan defaults, with the court finding that the borrower’s attempts to challenge the process came too late and lacked sufficient legal grounds. The ruling, issued on April 22, 2026, by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, stems from an appeal filed by Roxanne D. Hendon against Port Washington State Bank following a series of motions and hearings related to the repossession of her 2021 Tesla Model 3.
According to official records, Port Washington State Bank initiated a small claims replevin action in Ozaukee County Circuit Court in April 2025, alleging that Hendon had defaulted on her loan agreement. The complaint stated that Hendon’s account was past due for several months—specifically from November 2024 through March 2025—with an outstanding amount of $3,891.30. The bank reported it had sent Hendon a default and right-to-cure notice on October 25, 2024, but both regular and certified mailings were returned undelivered.
Efforts to personally serve Hendon at two Milwaukee addresses were unsuccessful despite multiple attempts by the bank’s process server. After these efforts failed, the bank proceeded with service by publication as allowed under Wisconsin law, publishing notice in The Daily Reporter on May 5, 2025, and mailing documents to another address associated with Hendon. She did not appear at the scheduled hearing on May 21st, leading the circuit court commissioner to enter a default judgment granting possession of the vehicle to the bank.
Following this judgment, Hendon filed numerous motions seeking judicial review and reopening of her case. Her filings included allegations of improper service, procedural errors by the bank and third parties involved in her loan transaction, unauthorized repossession of her vehicle, discrepancies in payment accounting, unlicensed conduct by bank representatives, and ongoing investigations by federal agencies into the matter. Despite these claims—detailed in various motions between June and August 2025—the court commissioner denied each request after determining they raised no new substantive issues or legal bases for relief.
On August 28, 2025—17 days after receiving written notice via email of an order denying her most recent motion—Hendon formally demanded a new trial or de novo hearing before the circuit court regarding the commissioner’s August 11th decision. The bank opposed this demand as untimely under Wisconsin Statute §799.207(2)(b), which requires such requests be filed within fifteen days from mailing of a written decision.
The circuit court held a hearing on October 7, 2025 to consider whether Hendon’s request met statutory deadlines and whether she presented any meritorious defenses justifying reopening the default judgment under Wisconsin Statute §799.29. The court concluded that not only was her demand for de novo review outside the required time frame—even if calculated from the latest possible date—but also that none of her asserted defenses met legal standards for overturning or reopening judgments based on excusable neglect or newly discovered evidence.
In its written order dated October 10th, the circuit court reaffirmed these findings: (1) Hendon acknowledged receipt of notice; (2) she missed statutory deadlines; (3) proper service had been achieved through publication; (4) she remained in default without curing arrears; and (5) she failed to demonstrate good cause or any meritorious defense sufficient for relief.
On appeal before Judge Grogan of District I Court of Appeals (Case No. 2025AP2276), Hendon argued that email notification should not trigger statutory deadlines for filing trial demands and reiterated earlier defenses regarding service procedures and alleged misconduct by the bank. However, the appellate opinion rejected these arguments due to lack of supporting legal authority or evidence disputing receipt of notification.
“Because she did not file her request within that fifteen-day window,” wrote Judge Grogan in summarizing statutory requirements for small claims review procedures under §799.207(2)(b), “she may not seek review of the court commissioner’s order before the circuit court.” The opinion further noted: “Hendon’s argument that … [the] order was e-mailed rather than mailed … does not alter this analysis,” emphasizing appellants must provide legal citations supporting their positions.
Ultimately concluding that all procedural rules had been followed correctly by both lower courts and Port Washington State Bank—and finding no grounds for further review—the appellate panel affirmed denial of all relief sought by Hendon.
The attorneys representing either party are not named in this document. The case was presided over at various stages by Judge Sandy A. Williams at Ozaukee County Circuit Court prior to appeal before Judge Grogan at District I Court of Appeals under Case ID No. 2025AP2276.
Source: 2025AP2276_Port_Washington_State_Bank_v_Hendon_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
