SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J. The defendant, Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Inc. (PIC), seeks review of a published decision of the court of appeals. For purposes of this review, the court of appeals affirmed a judgment by default rendered by the Circuit Court for Dunn County, Rod W. Smeltzer, Judge, against PIC for damages suffered by plaintiffs Shelley Otto, Ashley Otto, Amanda Otto, and the Estate of Dale Otto (collectively, the plaintiff) as a result of the alleged medical malpractice of PIC's codefendant insureds. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J. This case involves an insurance provider's duty to defend the holder of a broad homeowners' liability policy against claims that he built his house too close to a shoreline in violation of a restrictive covenant. Gregory A. Liebovich (Liebovich) sued his insurers, Minnesota Insurance Company and American International Insurance Company (AIG), after they refused to defend him in a lawsuit filed against Liebovich by some of his neighbors for violating a covenant with a 125-foot setback restriction. AIG filed a motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted. The court of appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, concluding in a published opinion that AIG had a duty to defend Liebovich, and that AIG could have sought a judicial determination of its responsibilities if it felt the policy did not provide coverage, but instead AIG unilaterally breached its duty to defend.

N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. This is a review of a published decision of the Court of Appeals, which reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the decision of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, Judge Michael D. Guolee.

ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J. This case is before the court on certification by the court of appeals, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.61 (2005-06). The circuit court concluded that Town of Rhine, Wis., Municipal Code § 4.08(2)(a), "B-2 Commercial Manufacturing or Processing," is unconstitutional and that the defendants' nuisance ordinance violations should be dismissed. The court of appeals certified two issues to this court.

PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J. We review a decision of the court of appeals reversing a circuit court order denying Michael J. Watton's petition for a writ of mandamus. Watton filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the production of statements of emergency detention kept by the City of Milwaukee Police Department. The issue presented is whether, upon an open records request to the City of Milwaukee Police Department, provisions of the Mental Health Act, ch. 51 of the Wisconsin Statutes, preclude disclosure of duplicate copies of statements of emergency detention that are in the possession of the police department, absent written informed consent or a court order. We conclude that it does; and therefore, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals.

FINE, J. Timothy J. Brophy, Jr., appeals a judgment entered on a jury verdict dismissing his breach-of-contract claim against Weiss, Berzowski, Brady, LLP. Brophy claims that: (1) the Weiss firm violated a real-estate contract when it disbursed Brophy's earnest money to the seller; or, in the alternative, (2) the contract was illusory and unenforceable. We affirm.

PER CURIAM. Scott A. Heimermann appeals from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief and an order denying his motion for reconsideration. Heimermann argues that the trial court erred in that it did not properly consider the information submitted by Heimermann as newly discovered evidence that would result in a different outcome at trial. Because Heimermann's claims have been raised in previous appeals and are procedurally barred by State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994), we affirm.

KESSLER, J. Allen M. Orville appeals from an order denying his motion to substitute Attorney Alan D. Eisenberg as counsel or, in the alternative, for the Honorable Dennis P. Moroney to recuse himself from Orville's case. We affirm.

PER CURIAM. Robert Morin appeals from a judgment convicting him of first-degree sexual assault of a child. He also appeals from the order denying him postconviction relief. He contends that the trial court allowed inadmissible expert testimony at his trial, and that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel. We affirm.

PER CURIAM. Jon Goulet appeals judgments of conviction and an order denying his postconviction motion. He argues the court erred in ordering him to pay restitution to the State for amounts paid by medical assistance as a result of his theft of his mother's funds. We disagree and affirm the judgments and order.

PER CURIAM. Thomas Zaruba appeals from a judgment convicting him of second-degree sexual assault of a child contrary to WIS. STAT. § 948.02(2) (2005-06) and victim intimidation contrary to WIS. STAT. § 940.44(1) and from an order denying his motion to modify his sentence. Zaruba challenges the circuit court's exercise of sentencing discretion. Because the court properly exercised its discretion, we affirm.

PER CURIAM. Richard M. Mynor appeals pro se from an order denying his second postconviction motion for sentence modification. We affirm.

PER CURIAM. Richard Davy appeals from a judgment convicting him of armed robbery contrary to WIS. STAT. § 943.32(2) (2005-06) and from an order denying his motion for resentencing. Davy argues that the circuit court failed to consider the sentencing guidelines, and he should be resentenced. We conclude that the circuit court failed to consider the sentencing guidelines as required by State v. Grady, 2007 WI 81, ¶30, 302 Wis. 2d 80, 734 N.W.2d 364, clarified on reconsideration, 2007 WI 125, 305 Wis. 2d 65, 739 N.W.2d 488, then the court's error was harmless, State v. Sherman, 2008 WI App 57, ¶¶8-9, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, review denied (WI June 10, 2008) (Nos. 2007AP899-CR and 2007AP2008-CR). Additionally, the sentencing guidelines did not constitute a new factor requiring resentencing. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court's refusal to resentence Davy.

KESSLER, J. Vladimir and Izolda Kalugin appeal from a default judgment granted in favor of Manchester Village Owners Association, Inc. ("Manchester"). They argue that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it denied their motion to enlarge the time to answer the complaint and when it granted the default judgment. Because the Kalugins failed to file a WIS. STAT. § 806.07 (2005-06) motion for relief from the default judgment, we conclude that they waived their right to challenge the judgment. We also reject the Kalugins' request that we reverse the judgment in the interest of justice. We affirm the judgment and remand to the trial court for a determination of reasonable appellate attorney fees incurred by Manchester responding to this appeal.

DYKMAN, J. Peggy Ann Smelser, Margaret Zweifel, and Greenbrier & Russel, Inc. (Smelser and Zweifel) appeal from an order denying their motions for summary judgment. They contend that the circuit court erred in concluding that there are disputed issues of material fact in Peg Westphal's action for civil conspiracy and tortious interference with employment. We conclude that the undisputed facts in the record do not support Westphal's claims, and therefore reverse.

WEDEMEYER, J. The Milwaukee Board of School Directors (the Board), appeals from a final judgment of the trial court for Milwaukee County affirming the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission's (WERC) decision that the Board violated the Municipal Employment Relations Act (MERA) by prohibiting the placement of "Attract and Retain" signs in the classrooms and other locations which students customarily occupied.

PER CURIAM. This is a probate dispute between Elsie Schultz and her late husband Edwin's children from a prior marriage. The children argue the court erred in awarding Elsie certain gambling winnings. They also argue Edwin's estate should not have included property Edwin gave his children before his death. A threshold question in this appeal is whether the children's appeal is timely. We conclude it is not, and dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM. Kristin S. appeals an order dismissing her petition for appointment as Paul V.'s successor guardian. Kristin argues the circuit court both erred by concluding that she lacked standing and erroneously exercised its discretion by dismissing the petition without considering relevant facts. We reject these arguments and affirm the order.

ANDERSON, P.J. Michael G. Hauck contends that his current conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) cannot be enhanced by a prior conviction that is invalid because he did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to counsel in the prior proceeding. However, Hauck is unable to make a prima facie case that he did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to counsel and therefore we affirm.

DYKMAN, J. Anchor Point Condominium Owner's Association (APCA) appeals from an order granting summary judgment to Fish Tale Properties in APCA's action for a declaratory judgment and injunction to prevent Fish Tale from using APCA's piers and boat slips. APCA argues that the trial court erred in finding that the documents granting Fish Tale the right to use APCA's piers and boat slips did not transfer APCA's riparian rights to Fish Tale, violating WIS. STAT. § 30.133(1) (2005-06). APCA also argues that the trial court erred in finding that even if the documents violate § 30.133(1), APCA is estopped from arguing that Fish Tale may not use its piers and boat slips. We conclude that the documents establishing Fish Tale's right to use APCA's piers and boat slips are transfers of riparian rights in violation of § 30.133(1), and that equitable estoppel may not be invoked to prevent APCA from seeking an injunction. Accordingly, we reverse.