Court Opinion

ID: 9688247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:41:42.66673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:36.874707
License: Public Domain

FINE, J.
(dissenting). I agree with the majority that clear statutory language precludes the use of bail money for restitution. I also agree that Brian Cetnarow-ski's father has standing. See In re Paternity of J.S.P., 158 Wis. 2d 100, 107, 461 N.W.2d 794, 796 (Ct. App. 1990) ("A person may be an aggrieved party even though he or she is not a named party to the suit if he or she has a substantial interest adverse to the judgment or order."). Nevertheless, I believe the trial court's order must be affirmed because Brian Cetnarowski's father is guilty of laches.
The trial court's order directing that bail money posted on Brian Cetnarowski's behalf be used for restitution was entered June 8,1990. It was not until February 22,1991, some eight months later, that Brian Cetnarow-ski's father sought return of that money.1 Additionally, *714Brian Cetnarowski sought modification of his sentence three times in the intervening period: on August 21, 1990, on September 17, 1990, and on October 3, 1990, but never sought modification of the trial court's order that the bail be applied to his restitution obligations. Under these circumstances, and absent anything in the appellate record to the contrary, I believe that laches applies. See Wetzel v. Minnesota Ry. Transfer Co., 169 U.S. 237, 241 (1898) ("The interests of public order and tranquility demand that parties shall acquaint themselves with their rights within a reasonable time, and although this time may be extended by their actual ignorance, or want of means, it is by no means illimitable."). I would affirm.2

 The bail money was posted by Brian's father. The father's February 22, 1991, letter to the trial court represents that the money was loaned to him by Brian's grandmother, that social security was the grandmother's sole source of income, and that *714"she receives the lowest increment at that." The trial court took no evidence under oath on the accuracy of these representations.

 An appellate court may affirm on a rationale other than that given by the trial court. State v. Holt, 128 Wis. 2d 110, 124-125, 382 N.W.2d 679, 687 (Ct. App. 1985).