Wis. Supreme Court issues two decisions clarifying when a final judgment is entered.

Byline: Wisconsin Law Journal Staff

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Mar. 21 issued two decisions clarifying when a final judgment is entered, triggering the period for filing a notice of appeal. The court held that a final order must contain an explicit statement either dismissing the entire matter in litigation or adjudging the entire matter in litigation as to one or more parties. To avoid future confusion, the court also ordered that, commencing Sept. 1, 2007, final orders or judgments must contain a statement on the face of the document that it is final for the purpose of appeal. The court added that, absent such a statement, appellate courts should liberally construe ambiguities to preserve the right of appeal. The more detailed discussion of finality is contained in Wambolt v. West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. The other case, Tyler v. The RiverBank, applies the standard discussed more fully in Wambolt. Wambolt In Wambolt, the plaintiffs filed suit seeking UIM coverage against three insurers. The circuit court filed a memorandum decision on Apr. 25, 2005, granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On May 9, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration. On June 6, the court denied the motion in an order stating that the insurer is "dismissed from this action." On July 12, 79 days after the memorandum decision, and 36 days after the June 6 order, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, which the court of appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, in a decision by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. The court began by setting forth the previous governing standard, set forth in Harder v. Pfitzinger, 2004 WI 102, 274 Wis.2d 324, 682 N.W.2d 398: "when an order or a judgment is entered that disposes of all of the substantive issues in the litigation, as to one or more parties, as a matter of law, the circuit court intended it to be the final document for purposes of appeal, notwithstanding the label it bears or subsequent actions taken by the circuit court." In Wambolt's case, the court concluded, the court of appeals went awry by interpreting the circuit court's "deciding" the substantive issues on April 25 as "disposing" of them. The court concluded that this misinterprets Harder. The final order in Harder did not contain legal reasoning; it simply and explicitly dismissed all causes of action. The April 25 order, in contrast, contained extensive reasoning, but did not explicitly dismiss or adjudge...