Source: http://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=78&Issue=9&ArticleID=983
Timestamp: 2016-08-24 06:27:33
Document Index: 472837910

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 807', '§\n802', '§ 807', '§\n802', '§ 751', '§ 807', '§ 802', '§ 807', '§ 802', '§ 807', '§ 807', '§ 807', '§ 807', '§ 807', '§ 802']

Supreme Court OrdersThe Wisconsin Supreme Court will hold a public hearing on Oct. 25 to consider amendments affecting appellate court procedures and rules regarding stipulations and settlements reached through alternative dispute resolution.EmailPrintSaveComments (0)FacebookTweetlinkedInGoogle+
The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hold a public hearing on Oct. 25 to consider amendments affecting appellate court procedures and rules regarding stipulations and settlements reached through alternative dispute resolution.
In the matter of Proposed Amendment to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19
(Briefs and Appendix) relating to the certification of compliance with
Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(2)
Order 04-11
On Nov. 22, 2004, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, Hon.
Thomas Cane, filed a petition seeking to amend Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19
relating to the certification of compliance with Wis. Stat. Rule
809.19(2).
IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing on the petition shall be held in
the Supreme Court Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wis., on Oct. 25,
2005, at 9:30 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court's conference in the matter shall
be held promptly following the public hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing be given by
publication of a copy of this order and of the petition in the official
state newspaper once each week for three consecutive weeks and in an
official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin not more than 60 days
nor less than 30 days before the date of the hearing. Dated at Madison,
Wis., this 19th day of August, 2005.
The Court of Appeals respectfully petitions the Supreme Court to
create Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(2)(a) as follows:
(2) (a) Certification. An appellant's
counsel shall append to the appendix a signed certification that the
appendix meets the content requirements of s. 809.19(2) in the following
I hereby certify that filed with this brief, either as a separate
document or as a part of this brief, is an appendix that complies with
s. 809.19(2) and that contains: (1) a table of contents; (2) relevant
trial court record entries; (3) the findings or opinion of the trial
court; and (4) portions of the record essential to an understanding of
the issues raised, including oral or written rulings or decisions
showing the trial court's reasoning regarding those issues.
I further certify that if the record is required by law to be
confidential, the portions of the record included in the appendix are
reproduced using first names and last initials instead of full names or
persons, specifically including juveniles and parents of juveniles, with
a notation that the portions of the record have been so reproduced to
preserve confidentiality and with appropriate references to the
Signature: .........
Note: As the number of appeals has increased, the
court's reliance on appendices during the decision-making process has
increased. The Court of Appeals requests that Wis. Stat. Rule
809.19(2)(a) be created to require that appellant's counsel certify
compliance with Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(2) that requires an appellant's
brief include an appendix and sets forth the contents of the appendix.
The Court of Appeals believes that a certification requirement, similar
to the form and length certification required by Wis. Stat. Rule
809.19(8)(d), will result in increased compliance with Wis. Stat. Rule
809.19(2) and improve the quality of appendices that are filed with the
court. Therefore, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals respectfully requests
that the Supreme Court adopt the proposed amendment to Wis. Stat. Rule
809.19(2), Rules of Appellate Procedure.
This petition is directed to the Supreme Court's rule-making
authority under Wis. Const., art. VII, sec. 3(1) and Wis. Stat. §
Thomas Cane, Chief Judge
In the matter of the Amendment of Wis. Stat. § 807.05
(Stipulations) and Creation of Wis. Stat. §
802.12(5) (Relating to Memorializing Settlements Reached By Way of
Alternative Dispute Resolution)
On Feb. 16, 2005, Attorney Donald Leo Bach filed a petition seeking
to amend Wis. Stat. § 807.05 and create Wis. Stat. §
802.12(5).
nor less than 30 days before the date of the hearing.
Dated at Madison, Wis., this 19th day of August, 2005.
Petitioner Attorney Donald Leo Bach of DeForest respectfully
petitions the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for an Order, pursuant to Wis.
Stat. § 751.12 amending Wis. Stat. § 807.05 and creating Wis.
Stat. § 802.12(5) as follows:
Amendment to Wis. Stat. § 807.05
No agreement, stipulation, or consent between the parties or their
attorneys, in respect to the proceedings in an action or special
proceeding shall be binding unless (1) made in court or during a
proceeding conducted under s. 807.13 or s. 967.08, and entered into the
minutes or recorded by the reporter, (2) made during a
deposition and recorded by a stenographer or on videotape, or
(3) made in writing and subscribed by the party to be bound
thereby or the party's attorney.
Creation of Wis. Stat. § 802.12(5)
(5) Settlement Finalization. Any settlement reached as a result of
the use of an alternative dispute resolution method shall be reduced to
writing, dated, and signed by each settling party prior to concluding
Rationale for the Amendment and Creation of Wis. Stat.
§§ 807.05 and 802.12(5) Respectively: It is not
unusual during a deposition for a party to start a line of questioning
on a subject and the counsel for the other party to object or indicate
that such line of questions is "irrelevant" or beyond the scope of
discovery because the party is not making any claim or taking a position
that the questioner seeks to inquire about.
A not uncommon deposition colloquy will go as follows:
Defendant's counsel: "When did you first start having back pain?"
Plaintiff's counsel: "Objection. We are not making any claim for back
pain in this case."
Defendant's counsel: "Just so I have this clear, you're stipulating
that you are not making any claim for back pain in this case?"
Plaintiff's counsel: "That's correct."
Defendant's counsel: "Okay, counsel, I'm going to rely on that
stipulation on the record. Therefore I will refrain from asking the
series of questions I had prepared in regard to back pain."
Defense counsel: "Are you maintaining a permit was needed for Doe
Company to construct this boiler?"
Government counsel: "Objection. We are not claiming a permit was
needed for any boiler; we are claiming that the installation of the
process dryer needed a permit."
Defense counsel: "So will you stipulate that you will not claim at
the trial that a permit was needed for the boiler?"
Government counsel: "Yes, we will stipulate that a permit was not
One would rightfully expect that these stipulations on the record at
a deposition are binding and enforceable. Unfortunately, there is a
statute that provides a harsh, illogical and unexpected surprise -
unless the parties set forth their agreements and stipulations in a
separate writing signed by the party (or party's attorney) who is to be
bound by the same, they are not binding and the stipulating party can
simply unilaterally back out of his or her agreement at their
The statute is Wis. Stat. § 807.05. It provides as follows:
"No agreement, stipulation, or consent between the parties or their
proceeding shall be binding unless made in court or during a proceeding
conducted under s. 807.13 or s. 967.08, and entered into the minutes or
recorded by the reporter, or made in writing and subscribed by the party
to be bound thereby or the party's attorney."
In Bertram v. Kilian, 133 Wis. 2d 202, 394 N.W.2d 773 (Wis.
App. 1986), the Court of Appeals ruled that a stipulation made on the
record during a deposition was not enforceable because it was not
reduced to writing:
"The reporter recorded the stipulation on the record during a
deposition in a law office, not in court. The stipulation was not
reduced to a writing subscribed by Debra, the party to be bound, or by
her attorney. Because the requirements of sec. 807.05, Stats., were not
met, the stipulation is unenforceable."
The effect of the statute, and of such rulings, is to hold that
attorneys, and/or parties, can make agreements or stipulations on the
record in a deposition upon which the other party expects to rely, and
which is recorded word for word by the court reporter, and yet have the
ability to back out of the agreement or stipulation. This result is
unfair and makes no sense. If the concern underlying the statute is that
oral agreements are susceptible to the "he said, she said" syndrome
since the matter was not written down or put in a recordable form, then
that concern is easily met when the stipulation or agreement is put on
the record at a deposition. After all, all other words spoken at a
deposition on the record are considered to have such substantial
reliability as to allow them to be used directly as evidence, for
impeachment purposes, or even for a basis for a perjury prosecution.
The proposed amendment to Wis. Stat. § 807.05 makes
representations on the record in a deposition binding and
Similarly, based on the wording of Wis. Stat. § 807.05, in
Laska v. Laska, 255 Wis. 2d 823, 646 N.W.2d 393 (Ct. App.
2002), the Court of Appeals ruled that even an agreement reached as a
result of mediation was not enforceable because the agreement was not
signed, despite the fact that it was memorialized by the mediator and
sent to both parties:
"Wisconsin Stat. § 807.05 is an exception to the usual rule that
oral contracts are binding. Adelmeyer v. WEPCO, 135 Wis. 2d
367, 400 N.W.2d 473 (Ct. App. 1986). It `seeks to prevent disputes and
uncertainties as to what was agreed upon.' Id. at 372, 400
N.W.2d 473 (citation omitted). The statute adds requirements for
enforceability of an otherwise valid oral agreement when the agreement
is reached in the course of a claim that is in the process of
adjudication. Kocinski v. Home Ins. Co., 154 Wis. 2d 56, 67,
452 N.W.2d 360 (1990). `An oral contract reached by stipulation in the
course of court proceedings is unenforceable unless formalized in the
way required by sec. 807.05.' Id. at 67-68, 452, N.W.2d
The creation of Wis. Stat. § 802.12(5) should solve the problem
of "backing out" of an agreed-to settlement, as well as resolving
disputes and uncertainties as to what was agreed upon.
WHEREFORE, for the above reasons, Petitioner requests the Supreme
Court of Wisconsin adopt the respective amendment and creation of the
statutes as indicated above.