A longstanding dispute over winter automobile races on Lake Alexander has resulted in a legal decision affirming the dismissal of claims brought by local property owners against the organizers of the events. The Court of Appeals has upheld circuit court orders that denied motions from Scott M. Pettit and Stacy L. Pettit, who alleged that activities conducted by Merrill Ice Draggers, Inc. constituted a private nuisance and trespass on their property.
The appeal was filed by Scott and Stacy Pettit in the State of Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District II, under case number 2024AP403. The complaint was originally filed in Lincoln County Circuit Court against Merrill Ice Draggers, Inc., with Judge Galen Bayne-Allison presiding over the matter.
According to court documents, the Pettits own real estate along Lake Alexander in the Town of Merrill. Each January and February, Merrill Ice Draggers holds automobile “ice drag races” on Ullman’s Bay—a portion of which abuts the Pettits’ property. The events involve setting up a racetrack with spectator areas, pit zones, snow fencing, and ticket booths where spectators are charged $15 for entry.
On June 4, 2021, the Pettits initiated legal action alleging private nuisance and trespass due to these activities. They also sought recognition that they hold title to part of the lakebed beneath Lake Alexander (subject to public trust doctrine), an injunction preventing further drag races on their claimed portion of lakebed, restrictions on charging admission fees for such events held on frozen lake surfaces, and relief from what they characterized as impediments to third-party use of the lake.
Following initial proceedings—including a September 2021 scheduling order outlining deadlines for witness disclosures and discovery—the case saw limited activity from late 2021 through mid-2022. The record shows that while Merrill Ice Draggers engaged in discovery requests directed at the Pettits (who responded), no reciprocal discovery requests were made by the plaintiffs.
In April 2022—two days before their deadline to disclose expert witnesses—the Pettits’ counsel requested a 60-day extension from opposing counsel due to health setbacks and anticipated judicial reassignment. While an extension was granted for expert witness disclosure until May 9, there was no agreement regarding lay witnesses or formal notification to the court about these changes. Ultimately, no witness disclosures were filed by the Pettits.
By September 28, 2022—after months without significant progress—the Pettits moved to amend the scheduling order formally citing ongoing health issues experienced by their attorney as well as procedural delays caused by anticipated judicial reassignment. At a hearing held September 29, counsel for Merrill Ice Draggers objected to resetting deadlines or starting anew but indicated readiness to proceed with summary judgment based on available evidence.
The circuit court questioned why neither attorney representing the Pettits had pursued timely action or communicated difficulties sooner. Despite explanations referencing health concerns and workload pressures within their law practice during an unusual year without set trial dates, Judge Bayne-Allison found these reasons insufficient given multiple opportunities to seek amendments or clarification from either judge or opposing counsel.
On January 27, 2023, written decisions were issued denying amendment of deadlines and granting summary judgment in favor of Merrill Ice Draggers. The court found that excuses provided did not constitute clear or justifiable reasons for missing deadlines; instead it described counsel’s conduct as “egregious.” Dismissal was deemed an appropriate sanction under Wisconsin Statute §805.03 due both to failure in complying with scheduling orders and lack of response to dispositive motions.
In subsequent filings seeking relief from these decisions—including arguments that confusion over scheduling contributed to missed responses—the Pettits asserted mistake or excusable neglect under Wisconsin Statute §806.07 but did not explicitly cite statutory grounds in briefs or correspondence with the court. The circuit court treated these submissions as motions for reconsideration rather than motions under §806.07 because they focused primarily on alleged errors of law rather than new evidence or specific statutory criteria for vacating judgments.
The appellate panel reviewed whether proper standards were applied when denying amendment requests; whether ambiguity existed regarding summary judgment deadlines marked “N/A” in original scheduling orders; if reconsideration should have been granted; and whether costs including attorney fees could be awarded against appellants. Ultimately, it concluded that discretion had not been abused: “the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its broad discretion,” noting repeated opportunities afforded plaintiffs’ counsel throughout proceedings as well as clear language governing motion responses even absent explicit new scheduling directives after judicial reassignment.
Merrill Ice Draggers requested costs including appellate attorney fees under Rule 809.25(1)(b)5., but because no motion alleging frivolous appeal was filed nor argument developed supporting such claim—as required under Rule 809.25(3)—the request for attorney fees was denied though standard costs were awarded per rule.
Attorneys’ names involved include those representing both parties throughout pretrial hearings; however only Judge Galen Bayne-Allison is specifically named among judges overseeing key rulings detailed above (case ID: 2024AP403).
Source: 2024AP403_Pettit_v_Merrill_Ice_Draggers_Inc_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
