|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED JUNE 25, 1996 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-3522-FT
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT I
AFSCME, DISTRICT
COUNCIL #48 AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE,
COUNTY & MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES, AFSCME,
AFL-CIO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MILWAUKEE COUNTY and
MILWAUKEE COUNTY
PENSION BOARD,
Defendants-Respondents.
APPEAL from an order of
the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
LAURENCE C. GRAM, JR., Judge. Reversed
and cause remanded with directions.
Before
Wedemeyer, P.J., Sullivan and Schudson, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Milwaukee District Council 48, American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (the union) appeals from
an order dismissing its complaint against Milwaukee County and Milwaukee County
Pension Board.[1] The complaint sought a declaratory judgment
addressing the eligibility, if any, of a union member for pension benefits from
Milwaukee County if the member was terminated for just cause after ten years of
service. Because the trial court failed
to state any basis for its discretionary decision dismissing the union's
complaint, this court concludes that the trial court's order must be reversed
and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
The parties stipulated
and the trial court agreed to decide the issues raised in the union's complaint
upon the parties' respective briefs, affidavits and oral argument. Upon the conclusion of the oral argument and
without the presence of a court reporter, the trial court orally dismissed the
union's complaint. The union's brief
alleges in pertinent part that the following exchange then took place between
the union counsel and the trial court:
The court microphone was not on and
counsel for AFSCME, asked the court, "did you say that the case is
dismissed?" The court said
"yes, the case is dismissed."
The attorney for AFSCME then asked the court "why is the case
dismissed?" It may be that the
court stated that the Union does not have standing to sue, but this counsel is
not exactly sure what the court said.
The microphone was not turned on and there was no court reporter present
and no record was made of what the court said.
Persons in the courtroom do not all agree as to what the court
said. If the court said that the AFSCME
union did not have standing to sue, certainly there was no judicial explanation
as to why the union did not have standing to sue.
These
factual assertions are not disputed by the county and pension board's brief.
The disposition of a
request for a declaratory judgment is committed to the sound discretion of the
trial court. State ex rel.
Brennan v. Branch 24 of Circuit Court of Milwaukee, 104 Wis.2d 72, 75,
310 N.W.2d 629, 630 (1981). We will
uphold the trial court's discretionary decision dismissing a declaratory
judgment complaint in the absence of evidence that the decision resulted from
an erroneous exercise of discretion. Id.
It has been long
established that "the exercise of discretion is not the equivalent of
unfettered decision-making." Hartung
v. Hartung, 102 Wis.2d 58, 66, 306 N.W.2d 16, 20-21 (1981). Instead, a proper discretionary decision
demonstrably relies upon the facts in the record and upon the appropriate and
applicable law. Id.
"Additionally, and most importantly, a discretionary determination must be
the product of a rational mental process by which the facts of record and law
relied upon are stated and are considered
together for the purpose of achieving a reasoned and reasonable
determination." Id.
It is undisputed that
the record in this matter is barren of either a written or oral statement by
the trial court explaining its decision to dismiss the union's complaint. Because the record shows nothing of the
trial court's consideration of the facts of record or its reasoning, we are
unable to conclude that the trial court reached a decision that a reasonable
judge could reach and that its decision was consistent with the applicable
law. Accordingly, we reverse the trial
court's order dismissing the union's complaint and remand the cause with the
direction that the trial court make a record of its exercise of discretion
capable of appellate review.
By the Court.—Order
reversed and cause remanded with directions.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.