Court Opinion

ID: 9526695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:22:24.403805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:08.142156
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.
¶ 40. (concurring). I agree with the majority opinion's bottom line. I write separately because the opinion goes too far.
¶ 41. As I understand the opinion, it holds that except for statutory time limits, every statutory mandate for invoking a circuit court's jurisdiction is waived if not first raised in the circuit court proceeding.
¶ 42. The reason for this new rule, which requires overturning or casting great doubt on numerous prior opinions (many not cited), is as follows: The black letter rule is that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; because Wisconsin circuit courts have total subject matter jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction in Wisconsin is never an issue in any case; competence is different from subject matter jurisdiction;1 the issue of competence is waived at the appellate level unless an objection is made in the circuit court.
¶ 43. The majority opinion paints with too broad a brush. It substitutes a bright-line rule for the text of many statutes. Bright lines are good. I wonder, however, whether we should adopt a bright line for a multitude of *102differently worded statutes. I suggest it is too simplistic for the majority opinion to conclude that all the prior cases are inconsistent without even examining these cases carefully.
¶ 44. This case presents a narrow issue relating to particular statutes. It seems to me relatively easy to apply the rule set forth in past cases: The court examines the statute and on that basis determines whether the statutory requirement can be waived.
¶ 45. We should use caution in advancing the theme that if a litigant does not raise an issue in circuit court it is waived.2 Let us hold lawyers and litigants to high standards and statutory requirements, but let us not revert to ancient common law where every error enabled a court to dismiss a case without looking at the merits of the case. A saving grace of the opinion, although not a great comfort to litigants, is that it preserves the right of an appellate court to examine the merits of a competence issue despite any waiver.
¶ 46. The approach taken by the majority opinion makes this court's work easier: Just say "waiver."
¶ 47. For the reasons set forth above, I write separately.
¶ 48. I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH BRADLEY joins this opinion.

 The majority opinion defines competence as adhering to statutory prerequisites except statutory time limits, which are not addressed.

 For other recent decisions relying on the waiver doctrine, see, e.g., State v. Hayes, 2004 WI 80,_Wis. 2d_, 681 N.W.2d 203 (Sykes, J., concurring); State v. Meeks, 2003 WI 104, 263 Wis*. 2d 794, 666 N.W.2d 859 (Sykes, J., dissenting).