Court Opinion

ID: 9884687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:08:33.503471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:40.521436
License: Public Domain

*441ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J.
¶ 59. (concurring). I join the majority and agree that this court has jurisdiction to consider this petition for review. Majority op., ¶ 5. However, the majority declines to address whether an order compelling arbitration is appealable as of right or only by permission. Id. I write separately because I would go further and decide that an order compelling arbitration is not appealable as of right. A conclusion otherwise would contravene our long-standing policy of encouraging arbitration as an alternative to litigation. For that reason I respectfully concur.
¶ 60. I conclude that an order compelling arbitration is appealable only by permission under Wis. Stat. § 808.03(2). An order compelling arbitration is not appealable as of right because it is not a "final order." § 808.03(1). A final order is an order "that disposes of the entire matter in litigation as to one or more of the parties." Id. In this case, there is no question that the order compelling arbitration did not "dispose [] of the entire matter in litigation" as to either party, id.; rather, the order stayed the proceedings while the case proceeded to arbitration. The Estate of Parker (the Estate) does not argue otherwise. In its brief before this court, the Estate conceded that the court of appeals "was correct in reviewing the order compelling arbitration as a non-final order." Because an order compelling arbitration is a non-final order, it may be appealed only upon leave granted by the court of appeals. See § 808.03(2) (providing that the court of appeals may grant leave to hear an appeal from a non-final judgment or order if the court determines that an appeal will "(a) Materially advance the termination of the litigation or clarify further proceedings in the litigation; (b) [pjrotect the *442petitioner from substantial or irreparable injury; or (c) [cjlarify an issue of general importance in the administration of justice").
¶ 61. More importantly, to allow an order compelling arbitration to be appealable as of right would contravene our long-standing policy of encouraging arbitration as an alternative to litigation. "It has been the policy of this state and this court to foster arbitration as an alternative to litigation. The advantage of such a process lies in the avoidance of the formalities, delay, and expense of litigation." State v. P.G. Miron Constr. Co. Inc., 181 Wis. 2d 1045, 1055, 512 N.W.2d 499 (1994) (interned citations omitted). Indeed, we have recognized that "the goal of arbitration is 'to resolve the entire controversy out of court without the formality and expense that normally attaches to the judicial process.'" Borst v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2006 WI 70, ¶ 61, 291 Wis. 2d 361, 717 N.W.2d 42 (quoting 2A Jay E. Grenig & Nathan A. Fishbach, Wisconsin Practice Series: Methods of Practice § 86.40, at 272 (4th ed. 2004)); see also Franke v. Franke, 2004 WI 8, ¶ 24, 268 Wis. 2d 360, 674 N.W.2d 832 ("[PJublic policy favors arbitration as promoting the efficient resolution of disputes, and as giving the parties what they bargained for, that is, an arbitrator's, not a court's decision."). Arbitration is supposed to take place outside the province of the court until a party applies to the court for an order confirming, see Wis. Stat. § 788.09, vacating, see Wis. Stat. § 788.10, or modifying, see Wis. Stat. § 788.11, the arbitrator's award. The court may then enter judgment in conformity with its order confirming or modifying the award. Wis. Stat. § 788.12. Thus, the parties still have the opportunity to have their day in court, if necessary, after arbitration is complete. The goal and structure of arbitration would be completely under*443mined should we allow an order compelling arbitration to be appealable as of right, thereby inviting the arbitration system into the appellate process before the arbitration even occurs. Arbitration is designed to be the first step, not the last step. For that very same reason, an order denying arbitration, which requires the case to proceed in court, should be appealable as of right. See Wis. Auto Title Loans, Inc. v. Jones, 2006 WI 53, 290 Wis. 2d 514, 714 N.W.2d 155.
¶ 62. In summary, I would go further than the majority and decide that an order compelling arbitration is not appealable as of right. A conclusion otherwise would contravene our long-standing policy of encouraging arbitration as an alternative to litigation.
¶ 63. For the foregoing reason, I respectfully concur.