Sup. Ct. Order, 83 Wis. 2d xiii (1978); Sup. Ct. Order, 92 Wis. 2d xiii (1979); Sup. Ct. Order, 104 Wis. 2d xi (1981);
1981 c. 316
,
317
;
1981 c. 390
ss.
220
,
252
;
1985 a. 29
; Sup. Ct. Order, 151 Wis. 2d xvii (1989);
1995 a. 224
;
1997 a. 254
;
1999 a. 85
; Sup. Ct. Order No.
00-02
, 2001 WI 39, 242 Wis. 2d xxvii;
2003 a. 33
.
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1978:
Most of the provisions of former ss. 251.23 and 251.90 are retained. The major change is to provide that execution for costs in the Court of Appeals is to be had in the trial court in accordance with Rule 806.16 rather than in the Court of Appeals. The Judicial Council did not review the adequacy of the fees and thus made no recommendations on them. It is suggested, however, that many of the fees appear to be out of date and should be revised. This should be done in connection with a general review of fees in all courts. [Re Order effective July 1, 1978]
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1979:
Sub. (1) (a) and (d), which governs costs that are allowed in an appeal to the Court of Appeals or a review by the Supreme Court, have been amended for purposes of clarification.
A provision has been added to clarify that costs are taxed by the clerk in the Court of Appeals irrespective of the filing of a petition for review in the Supreme Court. In the event of review by the Supreme Court, a provision has been added specifically stating that costs are allowed against a petitioner in a case before the Supreme Court when the decision of that court affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals.
An additional clarifying provision has been added allowing costs against a respondent in a case before the Supreme Court when the petitioner before the Supreme Court has achieved reversal of a judgment of the Court of Appeals. The provision further states that the costs that were allowed when the case was originally decided by the Court of Appeals are canceled. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1980]
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1981:
Sub. (2) (a) 1. is amended to correct the reference from a petition to appeal to a petition for review. The supreme court reviews the decisions of the court of appeals. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1982]
Judicial Council Note, 2001:
?The 7-day time limit in sub. (1) (c) was changed to 11 days. Please see the comment to s. 808.07 (6) concerning time limits. [Re Order No. 00-02 effective July 1, 2001]
An appeal was frivolous when an assertion of trial court error was without any reasonable basis in law or equity and there was no argument that existing law should have been extended, modified, or reversed. In Matter of Estate of Koenigsmark,
119 Wis. 2d 394
,
351 N.W.2d 169
(Ct. App. 1984).
Tax protesters appealing without counsel were properly assessed costs under sub. (3) (c) 2. Tracy v. Department of Revenue,
133 Wis. 2d 151
,
394 N.W.2d 756
(Ct. App. 1986).
Restricting access to courts as a sanction for a frivolous action was appropriate when the order was narrowly tailored to balance the interests of public access to courts, res judicata, and the public's right not to have frivolous litigation be a drain on public resources. Minniecheske v. Griesbach,
161 Wis. 2d 743
,
468 N.W.2d 760
(Ct. App. 1991).
Asking the court of appeals to reweigh the testimony of witnesses and to reach a conclusion regarding credibility contrary to that reached by a trial judge was frivolous. Lessor v. Wangelin,
221 Wis. 2d 659
,
586 N.W.2d 1
(Ct. App. 1998),
97-2974
.
A frivolous appeal filed by a non-lawyer results in the same harm as if it were filed by a lawyer. It would not be fair or logical to say that had a lawyer filed the appeal costs would have been awarded but to deny recovery because the appeal was presented by a pro se litigant. Holz v. Busy Bees Contracting, Inc.
223 Wis. 2d 598
,
589 N.W.2d 633
(Ct. App. 1998),
98-1076
.
While only an appellate court can find an appeal frivolous, the case may be remanded to the circuit court to determine the amount of attorney fees to be awarded. Lucarelli v. Vilas County,
2000 WI App 157
,
238 Wis. 2d 84
,
616 N.W.2d 153
,
99-2827
.
In addition to an order to pay the respondent's costs, fees, and attorney fees, an appellant whose appeal was found frivolous after his brief was stricken for being offensive, scurrilous, and inappropriate was barred from filing any future proceedings in the court of appeals and the circuit court arising from, relating to, or involving the respondents. Puchner v. Hepperla,
2001 WI App 50
,
241 Wis. 2d 545
,
625 N.W.2d 609
,
98-2853
.
The circuit court's award of fees to the respondent due to the appellant's overlitigating by filing multiple frivolous issues on appeal, in violation of the circuit court's order, was not prevented by a court of appeals finding that no fees could be awarded under sub. (3). Zhang v. Yu,
2001 WI App 267
,
248 Wis. 2d 913
,
637 N.W.2d 754
,
00-3237
.
In order to be awarded costs, fees, and reasonable attorney fees, the moving party must prove that the entire appeal presented was frivolous. If an argument advanced has arguable merit, then the appeal is not frivolous. Baumeister v. Automated Products, Inc.
2004 WI 148
,
277 Wis. 2d 21
,
690 N.W.2d 1
,
02-1003
The trial court cannot make a finding that an appeal is frivolous and is without authority to order the payment of frivolous costs and fees associated with an appeal. Morters v. Aiken & Scoptur,
2006 WI App 46
,
289 Wis. 2d 833
,
712 N.W.2d 71
,
05-0703
.