Opinion ID: 8203910
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Application of the principles in this case

Text: ¶ 28. The circuit court's ruling in this case did not set forth the facts and the law to support a conclusion that concurrent jurisdiction exists in this case. Rather, the court appeared to presume that concurrent jurisdiction existed when it stated, . . . [T]here has been afoot in this country the acknowledgement that tribal courts serve a sovereign and I serve a sovereign, and if those two sovereigns have an amicable relationship that they can between the two of them work out cases that are more appropriately heard in one court versus the other court...[,] I believe it requires an analysis as to which of those two forums is better addressed - is better equipped to address the issues. The circuit court's reasoning focused then on that analysis. However, what is required here is an explicit determination of whether concurrent jurisdiction exists on the facts of this case and the applicable case law. ¶ 29. The second question for the circuit court to address is whether, where Wis. Stat. § 801.54 applies and concurrent jurisdiction exists, the factors set forth in the statute favor transfer to the tribal court. As the court of appeals noted, it is not disputed that there were relevant factors not considered by the circuit court in this case. (It stated, for example, The court did not address factor (b), regarding whether the action involved tribal cultural matters. Kroner, No. 2010AP2533, unpublished slip op., ¶ 25 (Wis. Ct. App. June 1, 2011). And it supplied its own analysis of factors (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (j), and (k), which the circuit court had not explicitly considered on the record. Id. at ¶¶ 26-31.) ¶ 30. Circuit courts have wide discretion, and their discretionary rulings will not be lightly disturbed. However, this record does not show that the facts of record and law relied upon are stated and are considered together in reaching the conclusion that the transfer to tribal court was warranted. Nor was there application of the principles of Plains Commerce Bank or Montana to the facts of record to determine whether concurrent jurisdiction, a requisite condition, existed prior to applying the statute. It is true that facts of record that related to some of the factors from Wis. Stat. § 801.54 were cited by the circuit court, which was focused on the evidence on which Kroner was basing his claims. The circuit court centered its analysis of the motion to transfer on the premise that the tribal court was in the best position to rule on a case where much of the evidence offered to support the contract claims would be tribal materials. However, many statutory factors relevant to a transfer decision were not addressed, such as the timing of the motion and matters of process, practice, and procedure. ¶ 31. It is of great assistance for a reviewing court for a circuit court to acknowledge on the record that all the factors have been considered, and specifically note on the record the relevant factors and the importance each is given in making the determination whether to transfer.