Paul Wurtz, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner v. L. William Fleischman, Defendant-Appellant

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the court of appeals exceeded its appellate authority by making de novo factual determinations, based on conflicting evidence, in lieu of and in addition to the trial court's findings on Fleischman's economic duress defense. Because the duress evidence was sharply disputed and the trial court's findings were incomplete, the only proper course was to remand for necessary findings; the court reversed the court of appeals and remanded with directions to vacate the judgment and to apply the elements of economic duress, provable only by clear and convincing evidence. The court also held that findings signed by a trial judge carry the same weight whether or not the judge personally drafted them. No separate opinions were filed.