Opinion ID: 8203910
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether transfer to a tribal court is warranted

Text: ¶ 21. If the circuit court finds that concurrent jurisdiction exists, and if there is no stipulation by all parties to a transfer of the case, the next step in the analysis is to determine whether transfer is warranted, considering all the relevant factors including those set forth in Wis. Stat. § 801.54. The statute lists the following factors: (a) Whether issues in the action require interpretation of the tribe's laws, including the tribe's constitution, statutes, bylaws, ordinances, resolutions, or case law. (b) Whether the action involves traditional or cultural matters of the tribe. (c) Whether the action is one in which the tribe is a party, or whether tribal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or territory is an issue in the action. (d) The tribal membership status of the parties. (e) Where the claim arises. (f) Whether the parties have by contract chosen a forum or the law to be applied in the event of a dispute. (g) The timing of any motion to transfer, taking into account the parties' and court's expenditure of time and resources, and compliance with any applicable provisions of the circuit court's scheduling orders. (h) The court in which the action can be decided most expeditiously. (i) The institutional and administrative interests of each court. (j) The relative burdens on the parties, including cost, access to and admissibility of evidence, and matters of process, practice, and procedure, including where the action will be heard and decided most promptly. (k) Any other factors having substantial bearing upon the selection of a convenient, reasonable and fair place of trial. The retroactivity issue itself could be such a factor in determining whether transferring this case to the tribal court would result in the selection of such a place of trial. ¶ 22. The published statute is followed by a comment. The Comment includes the statement, In considering the factors under sub. (2), the circuit court shall give particular weight to the constitutional rights of the litigants and their rights to assert all available claims and defenses. Supreme Court Note, 2008, Wis. Stat. § 801.54. The comment was not adopted but may be consulted for guidance in interpreting and applying the statute. Id. ¶ 23. Circuit courts are well practiced in applying multi-factor tests and balancing tests to reach legal conclusions in the exercise of their discretion. Such tests are common in widely divergent areas of law as family law, criminal law, and trademark law. See, e.g., State v. Artic, 2010 WI 83, ¶ 33, 327 Wis. 2d 392, 768 N.W.2d 430 (six-factor test to determine voluntariness of consent to a warrantless search); Zellner v. Cedarburg Sch. Dist., 2007 WI 53, ¶ 28, 300 Wis. 2d 290, 731 N.W.2d 240 (four-factor fair use exception to copyright infringement), and Wis. Stat. § 767.61 (3) (twelve-factor test for alterations to property division at divorce). ¶ 24. Even in a discretionary decision that may be based on multiple factors, however, we have said that the record must at least reflect the court's consideration of all applicable statutory factors before a reviewing court can conclude that the proper legal standard has been applied .... LeMere, 262 Wis. 2d 426, ¶ 25. Where such a test is required, a court applie[s] an incomplete, and thus incorrect, standard of law if it considers only one required factor and neglectG to address any of the other statutory factors. Id. at ¶ 22. Failure to apply the proper statutory rigor constitutes error. Id. at ¶ 25. When considering statutory factors, however, a court is not precluded from giving one statutory factor greater weight than another, or from concluding that some factors may not be applicable at all. Id. [T]he circuit court may summarily conclude that certain of the statutory factors are irrelevant. Id. at ¶ 26. Similar principles apply to another common multi-factor discretionary determination, the sentencing decision: [A]n abuse of discretion [by a sentencing court] might be found under the following circumstances: (1) Failure to state on the record the relevant and material factors which influenced the court's decision; (2) reliance upon factors which are totally irrelevant or immaterial to the type of decision to be made; and (3) too much weight given to one factor on the face of other contravening considerations. Ocanas v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 179, 187, 233 N.W.2d 457, 462 (1975). [Sentencing decisions of the circuit court are generally afforded a strong presumption of reason-ability because the circuit court is best suited to consider the relevant factors and demeanor of the convicted defendant. State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197 (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). It is appropriate to indicate on the record that all the § 801.54 factors have been considered, and specifically to note on the record the relevant factors and the importance each is given. This approach assists the appellate court in its review of the circuit court's exercise of discretion, and is consistent with the cases discussed herein.