Court Opinion

ID: 9659235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:36:04.8035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:05.375840
License: Public Domain

STEINMETZ, J.
(dissenting). The majority has misinterpreted and misapplied the law in a result-oriented effort which will cause chaos and doubt in the area of consumer protection law for years to come. The purpose is to find a deep pocket to enable recovery by consumers, who in this case are purchasers of swimming pools.
The majority writes of courts of equity, but fails to distinguish between the dictionary definition of equity as doing fairness or justice and that body of jurisprudence differing in its origin, theory and methods from the common law. There are no courts of equity in Wisconsin, only circuit courts which have jurisdiction to award legal or equitable remedies. Sec. 801.01, Stats. To refer to this trial court as a court of equity is a misnomer. It is a circuit court with the power to supply an equitable as well as .legal remedy.
The majority’s reliance on Love v. Wilson, 346 Mich. 327, 78 N.W.2d 245 (1956) is misplaced. Love held that a cause of action against a defendant was not necessary in order to name it as a party as long as “his presence in the case as a defendant is shown as requisite and neces*493sary to equity’s ultimate purpose — that of providing full and complete relief with due adjustment in one suit of the rights and duties of all of the named parties growing out of or connected with the subject matter of the suit.” Id. at 330-31. The decision did not state that a remedy may be granted for or against that party, even though no cause of action was stated.
In Love, the named bank had in its possession, as collateral, certain securities of Ralph Wilson, a partner in a co-partnership, D.M. Love Associates, which was seeking dissolution. The complaint naming the bank, as-cording to the Michigan court, alleged:
“[I]n due form that equitable control of such securities and Wilson collateral is necessary in order that complete relief in the case be duly decreed. As to such Wilson collateral the bill prays discovery and it asks preservation by injunction of all such partnership and individually-owned assets until decree is entered. That is enough to hold the bank, in court as a party, until equity is permitted to accomplish the purposes of her invoked jurisdiction — .preservation first, discovery next, and disposition according to maxim last. Any other rule would clear the way for pendente release of a stakeholder with possible resultant loss of the whole or part of the involved subject matter.” Id. at 329-30.
These facts are a far cry from being analogous to the instant case. The Michigan court applied and quoted that court’s rule as follows: “ ‘ [A] ny person may be made a defendant who has or claims an interest adverse to the plaintiff. Any person may at any time be made a party if his presence is necessary or proper to a complete determination of the cause.’ ” Id. at 331. Michigan Court Rule No. 1, sec. 3 (1945). Michigan requires an existing adverse interest for a party to be named or that his presence is necessary for a complete determination of the cause. First Savings is not adverse to an injunction against Viking, nor is it a necessary party to *494a determination of the cause of whether an injunction should issue against Viking. The state may seek no other remedy against First Savings in this action, since it is limited to only an injunction against a violator which may be accompanied with other requested relief.
Secs. 100.18(11) (d), Stats. 1979, and 100.20(6), cited by the majority, only authorize the state to commence an action to enjoin a violation of the respective statutes. Both statutes state that the department of justice “may commence an action in circuit court in the name of the state to restrain by temporary or permanent injunction [violations].” That is the extent of the attorney general’s authorization. The attorney general sought no in-junctive relief against First Savings. By the majority’s own admission, “The complaint alleged that certain of the defendants, but not First Savings, had engaged in deceptive practices in the sale of swimming pools.” (Emphasis added.) (Supra at 483.) Therefore, the statutes by their own terms give the attorney general no right to name First Savings as a party.
The majority then reasons that a party, even though no cause exists against it, may be named by the trial court for the purpose of forging a remedy. The authority for the trial court to form any proper remedy is part of secs. 110.18(11) (d), Stats. 1979, and 100.20(6). However, that authority of the trial court refers only to parties against whom relief is sought in the action. A party may not be named for possible relief unless the plaintiff possesses a cause of action against that party. The state had no cause of action against First Savings and has made it a party only to create a remedy. In my opinion, such reasoning is inverted.
The intent of the legislature in the sections considered is clear, and it is not that sculptured out of desire by the majority. Individual consumers can obtain relief against First Savings pursuant to secs. 100.18(11) (b)2 and *495100.20(5), Stats. 1979, and ch. AG, sec. 110.06(1), Wis. Adm. Code. These sections make no mention of the state as a proper party. The state may only seek to prevent future or further deceptive practices.
When the majority writes: “Consistent with such a purpose would be a construction of the language in secs. 100.18(11) (d) and 100.20(6) as allowing the state to name as a defendant in a complaint the same party who individuals, if they had brought an action, could name,” it is engaging in wishful and artful thinking and not describing the legislature’s intent. (Supra at 488.)
The distinction between who is maintaining the action can be significant for purposes of discovery. When the consumer is the plaintiff, it is treated as a party. When the state is the plaintiff, the consumer is not a party, but only a witness for the state, and is therefore not subject to all discovery techniques.
I foresee a myriad of potential problems with the majority’s decision. If funds are obtained, is the state to become the trustee and administrator of those funds on behalf of all known or unknown alleged victims of defendants’ unfair practices? By the majority’s own statement, Viking sold 106 swimming pools but does not say all those sales were claimed to be deceptive. Of that total, 44 pool purchases were financed by First Savings. Are all buyers being protected by the state or only those known or only those alleging deceptive practices now or in the future? Will the state represent buyers who paid cash or financed through lending institutions other than First Savings? The majority opinion creates a tangled web.
This court in Estate of Sharp, 63 Wis. 2d 254, 260-61, 217 N.W.2d 258 (1974), clearly spelled out the authority and the limitations on that authority of the attorney general to prosecute an action. That opinion stated:
*496“This constitutional principle has been interpreted by the courts in numerous decisions as removing from the office of the attorney general any powers and duties which were found in that office under common law. State ex rel. Beck v. Duffy (1968), 38 Wis. 2d 159, 163, 156 N.W.2d 368; State ex rel. Jackson v. Coffey (1963), 18 Wis. 2d 529, 118 N.W.2d 939; State v. Snyder (1920), 172 Wis. 415, 179 N.W. 579. The attorney general is devoid of the inherent power to initiate and prosecute litigation intended to protect or promote the interests of the state or its citizens and cannot act for the state as parens patriae. See generally: Christenson, The State Attorney General, 1970 Wis. L. Rev. 298. Such power must be specifically granted by the legislature. Unless the power to prosecute a specific action is granted by law, the office of the attorney general is powerless to act.” (Emphasis added.) (Footnote omitted.)
Sharp declared that the state is not to act as parens patriae. Nonetheless, in this case, the state takes on not only that role, but also the role of big brother. The all-protective, controlling and dominating government has come a year early George,1 in 1983 and not 1984, being accomplished by court fiat.
I dissent and would affirm the court of appeals but for the reasons stated.
I am authorized to state that Justice William G. Callow joins this dissent.

 Reference George Orwell’s novel, 1984.