Opinion ID: 1728361
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Remand in the Mandate

Text: ¶ 86 As part of its holding, the majority opinion fashions a new rule that requires that the mandate line state that the cause is being remanded or that the appellate court provide some other clear directive in order for the circuit court to have authority to reopen the case for the amendment of pleadings. I begin with the first of these requirements: remand. ¶ 87 The majority opinion endows the word remand in the mandate line with magical powers, in spite of the court's ordinary reluctance to require the use of magic words or phrases to command results. ¶ 88 The initial line (the disposition) in our Tietsworth II decision simply states: Reversed and the mandate line simply states, The decision of the court of appeals is reversed. Tietsworth II, 270 Wis.2d at 151, 172, 677 N.W.2d 233. ¶ 89 The majority opinion's interpretation of Tietsworth II turns on these two lines of the lengthy decision. The majority opinion's reasoning, and its holding for future cases, primarily rest on this court's omission in Tietsworth II of the words and cause remanded after the initial word of disposition, reversed, and the court's omission of the same words and cause remanded in the mandate line. The majority opinion concludes that [i]f we had wanted [in Tietsworth II ] to allow the trial court to take further action, we would have specified as much in the mandate. . . . Majority op., ¶ 44. ¶ 90 The word remand does not have the same meaning as remit. The process by which the decision and mandate of the appellate court, along with the circuit court record, are returned to the circuit court is referred to as remittitur. The last sentence of Wis. Stat. § 808.09 is both a remittitur provision and a direction to the circuit court to proceed when it gets the remittitur. It states that [i]n all cases an appellate court shall remit its judgment or decision to the court below and thereupon the court below shall proceed in accordance with the judgment or decision. See also Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.26 (relating to remittitur). The supreme court need not use the word remand in the mandate line for the case to be returned (that is, remitted) to the circuit court and for the circuit court to take further action. Section 808.08 supplements § 808.09 and discusses further proceedings in the trial court after remittitur. ¶ 91 Notably, our disposition and mandate in Tietsworth II did not prohibit the plaintiffs from reopening their complaint to plead the contract and warranty claims we had recognized. They did not explicitly order that the action be dismissed in its entirety. They did not explicitly direct that a judgment of dismissal be entered. ¶ 92 Although the majority opinion penalizes the plaintiffs because the court did not use the magic word remand in the mandate line, the majority opinion nonetheless recognizes that mandate lines may be Delphic and open to competing interpretations. ¶ 93 The majority opinion acknowledges that motions have been filed in this court to clarify a mandate, see majority op., ¶ 48. Indeed, the majority opinion even faults the plaintiffs for not bringing a motion to clarify the mandate. Majority op., ¶ 48. This criticism misses the mark. One reason the plaintiffs may not have sought clarification is that they believed that Tietsworth II allowed them to amend the complaint to assert the contract and warranty claims the decision explicitly stated were available. Furthermore, this court's appellate practice and procedure rules do not explicitly authorize the motion for clarification that the majority opinion embraces. Although such a motion may be a good idea and the court has responded to such motions, they are not the only recognized way to proceed. [10] ¶ 94 Commentary on appellate practice often complains that appellate decisions are not clear regarding what, if anything, should happen when the trial court record and the supreme court's decision are returned to the trial court. Appellate courts are urged to spell out the consequences, if any, of a decision for further proceedings. In fact, the mandates at ¶ 41 of the majority opinion, which the opinion offers as illustrations, are typical of mandates that are criticized as not helpful. [11] ¶ 95 The meaning of a mandate line must be deciphered by applying a generally accepted rule of interpretation: Interpret words in their context. Thus, the mandate line must be interpreted in light of the text of the lengthy decision itself. The majority opinion, despite the rigid and formalistic components of its rule, actually agrees with this interpretive approach. Majority op., ¶ 47. I now attempt to apply it.