Court Opinion

ID: 9572366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:41:09.994276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:36.900843
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(concurring). I concur in the mandate, but I would affirm the decision of the court of appeals on different grounds than does the majority opinion. I agree with the court of appeals (which agreed with the circuit court) that judgment should be entered for Chevron on grounds of negligent *952misrepresentation. The parties and the public would have benefitted had this court performed its law-clarifying function by reaching a decision on the important, complex substantive issues presented by this case.
The majority opinion orders the entry of a default judgment against Deloitte & Touche as a sanction for the misconduct of Deloitte's attorney. While the attorney's conduct may deserve censure and the imposition of penalties, I think the posture in which the case is before this court makes it inappropriate for the majority to order default judgment against Deloitte.
According to the majority opinion, the circuit court's decision about whether the circuit court exercised its discretion to enter judgment as a sanction for attorney misconduct was ambiguous. Majority op. at 945. Ordinarily if a circuit court does not exercise its discretion, or if we cannot determine how the circuit court exercised its discretion, this court remands the case to the circuit court. In this case the majority reviews the record de novo and thus supplants the circuit court's exercise of discretion with its own.1
*953I do not find any ambiguity in the circuit court's decision. The circuit court clearly declined to award judgment as a sanction for attorney misconduct.
Chevron moved for judgment as a sanction for attorney misconduct on the intentional misrepresentation claim only; no such motion was made on the negligent misrepresentation claim. The circuit court carefully treated the motions on the claims of negligent misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation separately in its decision.
The circuit court first granted Chevron's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the negligent misrepresentation claim based on the evidence on that issue.2 Second, the circuit court reviewed the evidence on the intentional misrepresentation claim and awarded judgment to Chevron. In concluding this part of the decision, the circuit court stated its intention to "clarify that the rulings made in this decision today are based on the record in this case and on the evidence presented." (R. 275:6).3 Third, the circuit court turned to Chevron's motion to award judgment on the intentional misrepresentation claim as a sanction for attorney misconduct *954and declined to order judgment on this basis. The circuit court commented that "entry of judgment [on the intentional misrepresentation claim] as a sanction for counsel's misconduct would also be appropriate on this record. ... I recognize that granting judgment would have been a very drastic remedy, but drastic remedies are necessitated by repeated and flagrant disregard for court orders." (emphasis added) (R. 275:6-7). The words the circuit court used are "would have been," meaning that the circuit court did not grant this drastic remedy.4
If I were to agree with the majority that it should exercise the circuit court's discretion, I would direct the circuit court on remand to determine whether damages, including perhaps reasonable attorney fees, should be assessed against Deloitte, Deloitte's attorney, or both. Johnson v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 162 Wis. 2d 261, 287, 470 N.W.2d 859 (1991) (Abrahamson, J. concurring).
For the reasons set forth, I concur in the mandate.

In reviewing a circuit court's exercise of discretion the appellate court asks whether the circuit court reached a decision which a reasonable court could have reached after examining the relevant facts, applying the proper law, and using a rational process to reach its conclusion. Loy v. Bunderson, 107 Wis. 2d 400, 414-15, 320 N.W.2d 175 (1982); Hartung v. Hartung, 102 Wis. 2d 58, 66, 306 N.W.2d 16 (1981). A circuit court in the exercise of its discretion may reasonably reach a conclusion which another judge or another court might not reach.
Because the majority does not know how the circuit court exercised its discretion, the majority opinion examines the record and concludes Wat" even under a de novo standard of review, the entry of judgment as a sanction is appropriate." (Majority op. at 946) (emphasis added.) The majority's analysis overlooks the fact that its de novo standard accords significantly less deference to *953to the circuit court's decision than does the erroneous exercise of discretion standard. If, for example, the circuit court's "ambiguous decision" was not to award judgment as a sanction, the majority opinion is reversing the circuit court's decision without giving it any deference.

 The circuit court clearly stated that the issue of negligent misrepresentation should not have gone to the jury and that Deloitte was "negligent as a matter of law. . . . Thus, judgment notwithstanding the verdict will be granted on plaintiffs claim of negligent misrepresentation." (R. 275:3).

The circuit court continued, saying: "Judgment on the claims of negligent misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation should be granted because the evidence unequivocally supports this ruling." (R.275:6).

 The circuit court concluded its entire decision saying "But I think, when sifting through all the evidence, sifting through all of the sound and fury and all of the arguments back and forth, this Court has a responsibility to look very carefully at the evidence as presented and to very carefully track the law as it's been established and as it applies to this case. And, based on the evidence in this case and based on the law as it applies to the evidence in this case, this Court is granting plaintiffs motion for judgment.” (R.275:6-9).
Further, the circuit court's order on the post-verdict motions and the order for judgment make no reference to judgment being ordered as a sanction for attorney misconduct. (R. 204:1-2).