tailieunhanh - WATERSTONE BANK SSB, F/K/A WAUWATOSA SAVINGS BANK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. JOEL S. HELLER AND TERESA R. CLEWELL, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

The common points existing in significant domains, above all as regards the tripartite structure of the organization, the obligation to observe the regional principle12 and to promote public affairs are briefly contrasted in the table all existing dif- ferences of scale, it would therefore also be conceiv- able to take the current structure of the French sav- ings banks in many respects as a model for a future reform of the German savings bank system. Indications of an impending radical reform of the German savings bank system come particularly from the controversial discussions which have for some years now centred on certain basic principles of the German savings bank system operating under. | COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 23 2012 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. and Rule . Appeal No. 2011AP473 STATE OF WISCONSIN Cir. Ct. No. 2009CV2680 IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT II WATERSTONE Bank SSB f k a Wauwatosa Savings Bank Plaintiff-Appellant V. Joel S. Heller and Teresa R. Clewell Defendants-Respondents. APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Kenosha County BRUCE E. SCHROEDER Judge. Reversed and cause remanded with directions. Before Brown . Reilly and Gundrum JJ. 1 GUNDRUM J. Waterstone Bank SSB f k a Wauwatosa Savings Bank appeals from an order denying its request for summary judgment on a trespass counterclaim brought by Joel Heller and Teresa Clewell collectively referred to as the Hellers . No. 2011AP473 2 Waterstone brought a foreclosure action against the Hellers after they defaulted on their mortgage. The circuit court granted Waterstone summary judgment. The Hellers then amended their answer to include a counterclaim for trespass due to Waterstone s entering upon their property and placing a sign in the window with its contact information and eleven days later changing the locks on the house and installing a lockbox. Both Waterstone and the Hellers moved for summary judgment on the trespass claim. The court denied both motions. In denying Waterstone s motion the court concluded that even if Waterstone had consent to first enter the property a question of fact exists regarding the actions taken by Waterstone when it returned to the property. On appeal Waterstone contends that the Hellers consented to all of its challenged actions by the terms of the mortgage note and mortgage they previously We agree and reverse. BACKGROUND 3 The .