|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED August 7, 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. 95-2693
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT II
CHERYL PUTZ,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
TARLY S. DALL,
Defendant,
CARDSERVICE MIDWEST, INC.,
Garnishee-Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of
the circuit court for Waukesha County:
PATRICK L. SNYDER, Judge. Affirmed
and cause remanded.
NETTESHEIM, J. Cardservice
Midwest, Inc., a garnishee defendant, appeals from a circuit court order
confirming a judgment previously entered by a judicial court commissioner. Because Cardservice has not provided us with
a record of the relevant circuit court proceedings, we affirm the order.
Cheryl Putz obtained a
judgment against Tarly S. Dall in a small claims action. Putz then commenced the instant garnishment
action against Cardservice, Dall's employer.
In due course, the court commissioner to whom the matter was assigned
entered judgment against Cardservice for the full amount of the judgment. Cardservice sought de novo review of the
court commissioner's judgment in the circuit court. See § 799.207(3), (5), Stats. Although we
have no record of the circuit court proceedings, Dall apparently argued that
his earnings were not subject to garnishment because his income was below the
poverty level. See
§§ 812.34(2)(b)1 and 812.38(1)(b), Stats. The circuit court confirmed the judgment
previously entered by the court commissioner.
On appeal, Cardservice
argues that the court commissioner erred.
However, we do not review rulings of a court commissioner. State v. Trongeau, 135 Wis.2d
188, 191-92, 400 N.W.2d 12, 13-14 (Ct. App. 1986). Circuit courts, not court commissioners, issue appealable orders. See id. at 192, 400
N.W.2d at 14.
As to the circuit
court's ruling, Cardservice has provided us only with the clerk's minute sheet
from the de novo hearing and the court's final written order. However, these documents simply reflect the
court's ultimate ruling confirming the court commissioner's prior
judgment. Neither document explains
the court's rationale or logic in reaching its decision.
The scope of this
court’s review is necessarily limited to the record before us. D.L. v. Huebner, 110 Wis.2d
581, 597, 329 N.W.2d 890, 897 (1983).
The appellant has the burden to provide this court with the record
necessary to review the issues raised. See
State Bank of Hartland v. Arndt, 129 Wis.2d 411, 423, 385 N.W.2d
219, 225 (Ct. App. 1986). In the absence
of a trial transcript, this court will assume that the facts necessary to
sustain the trial court’s decision are supported by the record. Suburban State Bank v. Squires,
145 Wis.2d 445, 451, 427 N.W.2d 393, 395 (Ct. App. 1988).[1] And even if the question is purely one of
law, we are entitled to, and we value, a trial court's decision. See Scheunemann v. City of West
Bend, 179 Wis.2d 469, 475, 507 N.W.2d 163, 165 (Ct. App. 1993).
Since Cardservice has
failed to provide us with the record necessary to review the correctness of the
trial court’s decision, we are left with nothing of substance to review.[2] We therefore affirm the circuit court order.
In light of the above
holding, we also grant Putz's request for fees and costs against Cardservice
for a frivolous appeal pursuant to Rule
809.25(3), Stats. We remand this issue to the circuit court
for a hearing as to Putz's fees and costs.[3]
By the Court.—Order
affirmed and cause remanded.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.
[1] Cardservice contends that the parties did not present any testimony at the de novo proceeding in the circuit court. However, the parties may well have presented certain factual data to the court via stipulation or within their arguments upon which the court relied. We are entitled to know that information when we are asked to review the trial court's decision. Given Dall's claim of poverty, it appears that the issue may be, at least in part, fact driven.