Opinion ID: 1728361
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Option To Clarify Mandate

Text: ¶ 48 Tietsworth contends that he believes paragraphs 36 and 37 of Tietsworth II invited the circuit court to allow amendment of his complaint. This contention is implausible because Tietsworth's initial action after appeal was to file an entirely new lawsuit, e.g., Tietsworth 2004, instead of seeking to amend the original complaint. If Tietsworth believed the mandate favored reopening the case, he should have filed a motion under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.14 to clarify the effect of our mandate or a motion for reconsideration under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.64. [10] See Johann v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 270 Wis. 573, 579, 72 N.W.2d 401 (1955) (finding that where party finds any ambiguity in the opinion or the mandate the proper place to raise the issue is before the court that issued the mandate and not before the trial court); State ex rel. Lisbon Town Fire Ins. Co. v. Crosby, 240 Wis. 157, 159, 2 N.W.2d 700 (1942); State ex rel. Blackdeer v. Township of Levis, 176 Wis.2d 252, 260, 500 N.W.2d 339 (Ct.App.1993). [11] ¶ 49 Parties should follow this procedure because it promotes finality and protects scarce judicial resources by permitting the court that issued the mandate to resolve any ambiguity. Cf. Blackdeer, 176 Wis.2d at 260 n. 4, 500 N.W.2d 339.