Walworth County v. M.R.M., 992 N.W.2d 809

M.R.M. was involuntarily committed in January 2021 after a mental-health crisis involving a loaded gun and suicidal/homicidal statements; an initial commitment ran six months.
Walworth County petitioned in July 2021 to extend commitment for 12 months; the court rescheduled the final hearing to allow M.R.M. to retain counsel.
At least 48 hours before the rescheduled August 12, 2021 hearing, M.R.M. filed a jury demand; the circuit court denied it as untimely under Marathon Cnty. v. R.J.O. and held a bench hearing, entering a 12‑month extension.
After that hearing but before this appeal concluded, this court decided Waukesha Cnty. v. E.J.W., holding that a jury demand filed at least 48 hours before a rescheduled final hearing is timely.
The questions presented were (1) whether E.J.W. applies retroactively to M.R.M., and (2) if so, whether the proper remedy is reversal or reversal with remand given competency limits when prior commitment orders expire.
The Supreme Court held E.J.W. applies retroactively, M.R.M.’s jury demand was timely, and reversal (not remand) was required because the circuit court would lack competency on remand once the preceding commitment expired.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this court's decision in E.J.W. applies retroactively to M.R.M.	M.R.M. argued E.J.W. should apply retroactively so his jury demand was timely.	County argued E.J.W. should be prospective and not disturb prior cases decided under R.J.O.	Court applied Chevron/Kurtz factors and held E.J.W. applies retroactively; M.R.M.'s jury demand was timely.
Proper remedy where an extension entered in error expired while appeal pending — reverse or remand?	M.R.M. argued reversal because the circuit court lost competency on remand once the preceding commitment expired, so a remand would be futile.	County argued remand was appropriate and that courts can address extension petitions on remand.	Court held reversal is appropriate because the court lacks competency on remand when the immediately preceding commitment order has expired.

Waukesha County v. E.J.W., 399 Wis. 2d 471 (Wis. 2021) (interpreting Wis. Stat. § 51.20(11)(a) to allow a jury demand up to 48 hours before a rescheduled final hearing)
Marathon County v. R.J.O., 392 Wis. 2d 157 (Ct. App. 2020) (prior court of appeals rule requiring demand 48 hours before the time set for the original final hearing)
Sheboygan County v. M.W., 402 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2022) (discussing competence versus jurisdiction and remedies when an order at issue expires on appeal)
Kurtz v. City of Waukesha, 91 Wis. 2d 103 (Wis. 1979) (adopting Chevron factors for prospective application of civil decisions)
Portage County v. J.W.K., 386 Wis. 2d 672 (Wis. 2019) (refusing a "domino theory" that reversal of an earlier order automatically invalidates later independent extension orders)
G.O.T. v. Rock County, 151 Wis. 2d 629 (Ct. App. 1989) (holding a court lost competency where it failed to comply with statutory time limits for extensions)