A Wisconsin appellate court has upheld the default judgments against Ross Bolingbroke, who failed to appear for a trial on traffic citations. The Court of Appeals ruled that Bolingbroke did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of being unable to attend the trial due to a medical emergency. This decision affects Bolingbroke's legal standing regarding the charges of operating while intoxicated (OWI) and operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC).

The case began with traffic citations issued to Bolingbroke in 2017 for OWI-first and PAC-first in the Village of Whitefish Bay. After being found guilty in municipal court, he sought a trial in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. The trial date was postponed multiple times, with delays attributed to both Bolingbroke and the court itself. Eventually, the trial was set for January 21, 2025, but Bolingbroke did not appear.

Bolingbroke had requested an adjournment on January 7 and January 9, citing other commitments. However, he failed to notify the court of his absence on the trial date. After waiting for nearly thirty minutes, the court entered default judgment against him at the Village's request. Following this, Bolingbroke attempted to file a motion to reopen the case, claiming he had been hospitalized due to a severe injury that prevented his attendance.

On April 7, 2025, Bolingbroke sent an unsigned fax to the court claiming he had previously notified them of his hospitalization due to several broken ribs. However, the court found no record of his communication on the dates he claimed. The court's response indicated that unsigned motions were not permissible, and he needed to file a signed motion in person or by mail.

On May 7, 2025, Bolingbroke formally filed a motion to reopen the case, arguing that his due process rights were violated. He provided some medical documentation, including a letter from his health plan and an emergency department summary. However, the court found that he did not adequately substantiate his claims of injury or his inability to attend the trial.

The court held a hearing on Bolingbroke's motion on August 20, 2025, during which it denied his request. The circuit court cited Wisconsin Statute § 806.07(1)(a), which requires a showing of excusable neglect to reopen a default judgment. The court noted that Bolingbroke had not communicated with the court for several months after the default judgment was entered and failed to provide sufficient documentation to support his claims.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision, stating, "Bolingbroke fails to establish that his absence from trial was due to 'excusable neglect' or any other good cause because he failed to demonstrate any cause for his absence to the court’s satisfaction." The court emphasized that Bolingbroke's claims were not substantiated by the evidence he provided.

The ruling has implications for Bolingbroke's legal situation, as it upholds the default judgments against him. This means he may face penalties associated with the traffic citations, which include fines and potential impacts on his driving record. The decision also highlights the importance of timely and effective communication with the court, especially in matters involving legal representation and personal emergencies.

Moving forward, Bolingbroke may consider appealing the decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, as the appellate court's ruling does not preclude further legal action. However, the success of such an appeal would depend on the presentation of new evidence or arguments that were not considered in the earlier proceedings. As it stands, the Court of Appeals' decision reinforces the need for defendants to adhere to court procedures and deadlines, particularly in cases involving traffic violations.