Court Opinion

ID: 9672593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:57:46.982484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:17.418684
License: Public Domain

SCHUDSON, J.
¶ 12. (dissenting). Although I agree with the majority's statement of the parameters of WlS. Stat. § 968.20,1 conclude, in light of the trial court proceedings, that the inflexible application of that statute elevates form over substance and renders an absurd result.
¶ 13. In the trial court, the assistant city attorney, opposing Glass's motion for the return of property, argued:
If this court is going to impose upon the City the potential financial liability as to paying monetary terms of value of the property, certainly the City ought to then be allowed to pursue civil discovery, state their [sic] positions, make inquiries, submit written interrogatories to Mr. Glass in an effort to identify . . . the dollar amounts'/and determine just what the value of what was seized, [sic] was taken. And that is consistent with the .court's classification of these proceedings.
Responding to the City's concerns, the trial court then granted the City time "to determine what the valuation is on it, and to take whatever , discovery [the City] want[s]." The court then granted an additional thirty days "to get anybody joined that [the City] want[s]," *380and yet another thirty days "after that because... that may screw up the thing a little more." The court then scheduled a hearing in "about 120 days."
¶ 14. The City did not object. After all, the trial court granted the City all the time and procedural opportunities it requested. Although the City now argues that the court fashioned a remedy that was not available under Wis. Stat. § 968.20, the City does not argue that it was prejudiced, or that it was denied any right it would have enjoyed had Glass formally proceeded under Wis. Stat. § 893.80.
¶ 15. The trial court, satisfied that the City had improperly given Glass's property to a third party, expedited this case so that neither Glass nor the City would be further inconvenienced by a separate action. In doing so, the trial court granted all the City's requests. Glass and the City both benefited from the court's fair and expeditious approach. The trial court, no doubt, will be puzzled by the majority's decision and Glass, a pro se litigant, will be amazed that this court casts him back into a legal maze.
¶ 16. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.