802.12(3)(a)
(a) All settlement alternatives are available except focus group, mini-trial and summary jury trial.
802.12(3)(b)
(b) If a guardian ad litem has been appointed, he or she shall be a party to any settlement alternative regarding custody, physical placement, visitation rights, support or other interests of the ward.
802.12(3)(c)
(c) If the parties agree to binding arbitration, the court shall, subject to
ss. 788.10 and
788.11, confirm the arbitrator's award and incorporate the award into the judgment or postjudgment modification order with respect to all of the following:
802.12(3)(d)
(d) The parties, including any guardian ad litem for their child, may agree to resolve any of the following issues through binding arbitration:
802.12(3)(e)
(e) The court may not confirm the arbitrator's award under
par. (d) and incorporate the award into the judgment or postjudgment modification order unless all of the following apply:
802.12(3)(e)1.
1. The arbitrator's award sets forth detailed findings of fact.
802.12(3)(e)2.
2. The arbitrator certifies that all applicable statutory requirements have been satisfied.
802.12(4)
(4) Admissibility. Except for binding arbitration, all settlement alternatives are compromise negotiations for purposes of
s. 904.08 and mediation for purposes of
s. 904.085.
802.12 History
History: Sup. Ct. Order No.
93-13, 180 W (2d) xv;
1995 a. 225.
802.12 Note
Judicial Council Note, 1993: This section provides express statutory authority for judges to order that litigants attempt settlement through any of several defined processes. The parties may choose the type of process, the service provider, and the manner of compensating the service provider, but the judge may determine these issues if the parties do not agree.
802.12 Annotation
Subsection (2) (b) prohibits the judge from requiring the parties to submit to binding arbitration without their consent; this restriction preserves the right of trial by jury. Nor may the judge order nonbinding arbitration, summary jury trial or multiple facilitated processes without consent of all parties; these restrictions allow the parties to opt out of the typically more costly settlement alternatives.
802.12 Annotation
Lawyers have a duty to their clients and society to provide cost-effective service. The State Bar encourages lawyers to provide volunteer service as mediators, arbitrators and members of settlement panels.
802.12 Annotation
Subsection (3) sets forth several special considerations for family actions. Even when the parties consent to binding arbitration, the court retains the responsibility of ensuring that the arbitration award in custody, placement, visitation and support matters conforms to the applicable law. The court is not bound to confirm the arbitrator's award. Rather, it must review the arbitrator's decision in light of the best interest of the child. If following this review the court finds that the arbitration process and its outcome satisfy the requirements of all applicable statutes, the court may adopt the decision as its own. Miller v. Miller, 620 A. 2d 1161, 1166 (Pa. Super. 1993). Reasons for deviating from child support guidelines must be in writing or made part of the record.
802.12 Annotation
The Judicial Council has petitioned the Supreme Court to conduct a review and evaluation of this rule after it has been in effect for three years.
802.12 Annotation
Where multiple plaintiffs had similar claims against a single defendant it was not appropriate to conduct a test case then grant summary judgment to the plaintiffs who were not part of the test case based on the test case results. Leverence v. PFS Corp. 193 W (2d) 317, 532 NW (2d) 735 (1995).
802.12 Annotation
Wisconsin's New Court-Ordered ADR Law: Why It Is Needed and Its Potential for Success. Weinziel. 78 MLR 583.
802.12 Annotation
Alternative Dispute Resolution in Wisconsin: A Court Referral System. Noonan & Bostetter. 78 MLR 609.
802.12 Annotation
Hanging Up the Gloves of Confrontation? Tenenbaum. Wis. Law. Aug. 1994.
802.12 Annotation
Resolving Conflicts Outside Wisconsin Courtrooms. Soeka & Fullin. Wis. Law. Aug. 1994.