You found a default judgment. Start with the court file.

SettleADebt S_WI PASS-17

Wisconsin small-claims motion to reopen or vacate an ordinary consumer money-debt judgment

Actual fresh public-source access date: October 26, 2026, America/Los_Angeles; October 27, 2026 UTC. Historical baseline: October 22, 2026 Pacific. Mode: Regular Chat with public primary-source browsing. Model-family and power provenance remain coordinator-controlled and are not self-certified here. Component boundary: Motions or petitions seeking to reopen, set aside, or vacate an ordinary Wisconsin small-claims money judgment, including the special mail-service route, the limited relationship to Wis. Stat. §806.07, notice, hearing, stays, consequences, forms, and selected published or official appellate authorities.

P16 and the other reports identified in the prompt remain saved but unreviewed and supply no accepted legal premise. The necessary small-claims and general judgment-relief gateways were freshly researched for this pass.

Throughout this answer, C001 means S_WI-P17-C001, and S001 means S_WI-P17-S001.

Source-currentness qualification

A fresh official Wisconsin Legislature search result displayed the current §799.29 twelve-month language and was dated July 1, 2026, but the complete integrated section body timed out. The different official alternatives read were:

• current Wisconsin Court System forms and guides;
• official Wisconsin appellate opinions;
• official Wisconsin Legislature indexed fragments; and
• 2025 Wisconsin statutory reproductions, expressly labeled below as nonofficial read-aids, not current official-body certification.

The complete current integrated bodies of §§799.29, 799.14, 806.07, 801.14, and 801.15 remain a formal source-access hold. No failed fetch is treated as proof of no law, permission, or unchanged text. The forms and appellate decisions strongly corroborate the core special procedures and time limits. Wisconsin Legislative Documents+3

Executive disposition

For an ordinary Wisconsin small-claims money judgment entered by default, there are several distinct routes. They must not be merged:

Wisconsin’s published Mercado decision holds that §799.29—not §806.07—is the prescribed route for ordinary small-claims default reopening and that the twelve-month limit cannot be bypassed through a separate collateral action. Section 806.07’s grounds can nevertheless function as guideposts when a circuit court evaluates “good cause” within the §799.29 route. Wisconsin Court System+2

A motion filed inside twelve months is not automatically granted. Good cause is discretionary and can be defeated by carelessness, lack of supporting facts, absence of a potentially meritorious defense, or an unjustified delay even before the outer deadline expires. The 2026 Ceron opinion is unpublished and therefore persuasive rather than binding, but it is the freshest Wisconsin appellate discussion located and expressly upheld denial where the movant provided no affidavit or factual explanation for the initial default or the nearly year-long delay. Wisconsin Court System+2

G1. Chapter 799 reopening and its relationship to general civil rules

1. Chapter 799 controls the special small-claims route

Wis. Stat. §799.04 makes the general civil-procedure rules in chapters 801–847 applicable to small claims except where chapter 799 provides otherwise. Section 799.29 supplies a special reopening rule for small-claims default judgments. That specific rule controls over the general §806.07 route in the ordinary valid-default setting. C001–C004. Justia Law+1

2. Ordinary motion under §799.29

Section 799.29(1)(a) provides:

• no direct appeal from a default judgment;
• the trial court may, by order, reopen it;
• notice and a motion or petition must be duly made; and
• good cause must be shown.

For ordinary chapter 799 actions, the notice of motion must be made within 12 months after entry of judgment, unless the improper-venue branch applies. C004–C008. Justia Law

Actor and required-document matrix

SC-515A requires the movant to complete both:

1. why the failure to answer or appear occurred; and
2. why the movant believes the case could be won if reopened.

That is form guidance consistent with Wisconsin case law’s focus on both excusable circumstances and a potentially meritorious claim or defense. C006, C011–C013. Wisconsin Court System+1

3. Improper venue branch

For a default judgment entered where venue was improper under §799.11:

• the motion or petition must be duly made within one year after entry; and
• the statute says the court shall reopen the default.

This is materially different from the discretionary good-cause branch. The movant still must establish that venue was actually improper and that the motion was timely. C009. Justia Law+1

4. Default judgment cannot be directly appealed

Section 799.29 says there is no appeal from a default judgment. The direct route is first to seek reopening in the trial court. An order granting or denying reopening raises separate appellate questions; those are not the same as directly appealing the underlying default judgment. C010. Justia Law+1

5. Filing, service, and hearing notice

A written motion and hearing notice generally must be served on all parties under §801.14. Service is ordinarily made on counsel if a party is represented. C014–C015. Justia Law+1

Section 801.15(4) generally requires service of a written motion and hearing notice at least five days before the hearing unless another statute or court order supplies a different period. The statewide SC-6050V guide operationally states that SC-515A/SC-515B and SC-511A/SC-511B should be mailed not less than eight business days before the motion or hearing date. The guide expressly warns that local rules and procedures also apply. C016. Justia Law+1

The statute’s phrase “notice of motion must be made” can create a technical question about which event—filing, service, or both—satisfies the twelve-month outer limit. The statewide forms show a motion being filed and distributed to the court and parties; §801.14 requires service. This pass does not invent a statewide answer beyond advising that both the filing and service dates are legally material and should be provable. C015–C017.

6. Remote hearing is not automatic

Section 807.13 permits a court to allow oral argument by telephone and permits evidentiary testimony by telephone or live audiovisual means when:

• the governing statute or rule permits;
• the parties stipulate; or
• the court finds good cause after considering fairness and cross-examination.

It does not create a universal right to remote participation in every county or reopening hearing. C018. Justia Law

G2. Grounds, clocks, and mutual exclusions

7. Section 806.07 grounds as guideposts—not an ordinary alternative route

Section 806.07 lists these general civil grounds:

For ordinary valid small-claims defaults, published Mercado holds that §806.07 does not displace §799.29 or extend its twelve-month period. C019–C027. Justia Law+1

8. Excusable neglect and good cause

Wisconsin decisions use the §806.07(a) concepts as guideposts. Excusable neglect means conduct that might have been that of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances. It is not synonymous with ordinary carelessness, inattentiveness, or forgetting.

Relevant factors can include:

• whether the default was deliberate or accidental;
• promptness after learning of the judgment;
• whether the person had notice of the hearing;
• concrete factual explanation rather than a conclusion;
• whether the opposing party or court contributed to the failure;
• prejudice and finality;
• whether a potentially meritorious defense exists; and
• whether reopening would merely repeat the same result.

C011–C013, C020. Wisconsin Court System+2

The unpublished Ryan decision affirmed denial where the person missed the hearing because he was working and “lost track of time,” despite asserting that the plaintiff sued the wrong person. The claimed merits defense did not erase the need to explain the default. Wisconsin Court System

9. Promptness matters inside the twelve-month ceiling

The twelve-month period is an outer limit, not a promise that any motion within it is reasonable. In Ceron, the motion was filed near the end of the period, but the movant supplied no affidavit or factual explanation for either the original failure to respond or the prolonged delay. Denial was affirmed as a proper exercise of discretion. C021. Wisconsin Court System+1

10. Newly discovered evidence

Section 805.15(3) requires findings that the evidence:

1. came to the movant’s attention after trial;
2. was not missed because of a lack of diligence;
3. is material and noncumulative; and
4. would probably change the result.

Section 806.07(b) points to §805.16, whose ordinary new-trial branch uses a one-year-after-verdict limit. A default judgment involves no verdict or completed trial, and published small-claims exclusivity law does not allow this general provision to replace §799.29’s special twelve-month route. Newly found records can support good cause and a meritorious defense, but do not independently circumvent §799.29. C022. Justia Law+2

11. Fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct

Fraud or misconduct by the opposing party can support a reopening request, but the movant must identify:

• the specific representation or concealment;
• who made it;
• when it was discovered;
• why it affected the default or judgment;
• evidence supporting it; and
• why the request was made without unjustified delay.

Section 806.07(c)’s ordinary one-year rule does not supply a longer route than §799.29 for an ordinary small-claims default. Fraud on the court and an independent action are separately preserved by §806.07(2), but those are extraordinary and remain outside this bounded pass. C023. Justia Law

12. Truly void versus merely erroneous or voidable

A genuinely void judgment is a nullity; an erroneous or voidable judgment remains effective until set aside. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court distinguishes:

• fundamental absence of jurisdiction, which can make a judgment void; from
• loss of circuit-court competency or ordinary statutory error, which generally does not make the judgment void and can be forfeited or waived.

The reasonable-time limit in §806.07 does not apply to a truly void judgment, but a party cannot convert an ordinary pleading error, incorrect legal ruling, procedural mistake, or competency issue into voidness merely by using the word “void.” C024–C026. Wisconsin Court System+1

Small-claims service uncertainty

Published small-claims authorities use broad exclusivity language, but Ripco Credit Union v. Kennedy—an unpublished one-judge opinion—expressly assumed without deciding that a genuinely void small-claims judgment might fall outside §799.29’s twelve-month limit. It then held that service was valid, so the issue remained unresolved. Wisconsin Court System+1

An older unpublished opinion, Benitez v. Fasick, treated a motion attacking a void small-claims judgment for lack of proper service as distinct from a motion to reopen a valid default judgment. Because Benitez is unpublished and Ripco did not decide the question, this pass does not claim controlling published Wisconsin authority definitively resolves the interaction. C026–C028. Wisconsin Court System+1

13. Voluntary appearance and waiver

Section 799.14 expressly does not apply to a defendant who actually appeared and submitted to the court’s jurisdiction without using the statutory mail-service petition. A voluntary appearance can also affect objections to personal jurisdiction, but whether a particular later appearance waived a service challenge depends on:

• what was filed or said;
• whether the appearance was limited to contesting jurisdiction;
• when the objection was raised; and
• applicable §§801.06 and 802.06 doctrine.

That broader waiver analysis remains held. C029. Justia Law

14. Satisfied, released, or discharged judgment

Payment, settlement, release, or discharge can support a request for relief or provide a defense to enforcement. But the movant must prove:

• the governing agreement or discharge;
• performance and payment;
• scope of the release;
• identity of the judgment;
• whether only part was satisfied; and
• what record correction or satisfaction was required.

The allegation does not automatically reopen the merits or erase the judgment docket. C030. Justia Law

15. Catchall and extraordinary circumstances

General §806.07(1)(h) relief requires extraordinary circumstances. Miller v. Hanover identifies nonexclusive considerations including:

• whether the judgment resulted from a deliberate and informed choice;
• effectiveness of counsel;
• absence of merits consideration and the balance between merits and finality;
• existence of a meritorious defense; and
• intervening circumstances making relief inequitable to deny.

Section (h) is not a routine extension device. For ordinary small-claims defaults, it cannot be used to circumvent the special §799.29 outer period. Its factors may inform good cause within that period. C031–C032. Wisconsin Court System+2

16. Grounds and applicable-route matrix

G3. Stay, consequences, notice, restoration, and review boundaries

17. Ordinary §799.29 motion does not automatically stay enforcement

Section 799.29 does not state that filing an ordinary reopening motion automatically stays the judgment. General §806.07(2) likewise says a relief motion does not affect finality or suspend operation.

SC-515B includes a separate court-order checkbox stating that the prior judgment is stayed pending further order. This confirms that a stay must be ordered rather than assumed. C033–C034. Justia Law+1

18. The §799.14 mail-service route has a mandatory stay

Where the special mailed-service petition is timely and facially within §799.14:

• the court sets a hearing;
• if judgment has been entered, the court shall stay all proceedings on the judgment;
• threshold petition issues are heard first;
• if the petition is granted, the court vacates the judgment and proceeds to the merits; and
• if denied, the stay is revoked.

SC-511B implements this structure. C035–C038. Justia Law+2

19. Reopening, vacating, and winning are different

SC-515B permits the motion hearing and, if granted, the case hearing to occur at the same time and place. Reopening therefore does not itself dismiss the debt action or establish the proposed defense. C039–C040. Wisconsin Court System

20. Terms, costs, and partial relief

General §806.07 permits relief “upon such terms as are just,” but ordinary small-claims reopening remains governed by §799.29. A court may structure its order, hearing, answer deadline, stay, costs, or other procedural terms, but this pass found no universal rule that reopening automatically:

• removes a judgment lien;
• unwinds a garnishment;
• refunds collected money;
• restores property;
• dismisses the claim;
• deems an answer timely; or
• awards attorney fees.

Each consequence requires the actual order and governing statute. C041.

21. Restoration after a judgment is set aside

Wis. Stat. §806.09 provides that if a judgment or part of it was collected and later set aside or reversed, the trial court shall order restoration with interest, subject to:

• proof of the facts;
• notice and motion;
• a special bond option when a new trial is ordered; and
• protection of a good-faith purchaser for value without notice.

This is a separate restitution process, not an automatic refund merely upon filing a reopening motion. C042. Justia Law

22. Notice and proof

An ordinary reopening submission should preserve evidence of:

• judgment entry date;
• motion filing date;
• service date and method on every required party;
• hearing notice;
• reasons for the default;
• supporting declarations, records, or exhibits;
• promptness after learning of the default;
• proposed answer, defense, or claim; and
• any requested stay.

Statewide guidance says copies—not originals—are served and proof of service is filed with the court. The guide’s eight-business-day mailed-service instruction remains general statewide guidance and not a substitute for a local order. C014–C017, C043. Wisconsin Court System+1

23. Commissioner review, judge decisions, and appeals are different routes

The Court System’s general guide distinguishes:

• a demand for trial after a commissioner’s decision;
• an appeal from a judge’s decision;
• reopening a default judgment; and
• the special mailed-service petition.

A person should not assume that a motion to reopen tolls or replaces another review deadline. Full commissioner-review, new-trial, and appellate-clock research is deferred. C044. Wisconsin Court System

24. Clerical error versus substantive disagreement

GF-184A permits a request to correct an error in the clerk’s court record and expressly warns that disagreement with a court’s decision is not a correctable record error.

Examples of potential clerical issues include an incorrect name spelling or data-entry mismatch. Challenges to liability, damages, service, ownership of the debt, or legal correctness generally require judicial relief rather than clerical correction. C045. Wisconsin Court System+1

G4. Forms and selected Wisconsin authorities

25. Statewide form matrix

The forms state they may be supplemented but not modified. They do not supersede statutes, court orders, or county rules. C046–C052. Wisconsin Court System+6

26. Selected authority grid

Published authority controls over the unpublished decisions. No complete commercial citator or all-opinion search was performed. C050–C052. Wisconsin Court System+8

G5. Fictional workflows and conditional clocks

All examples are invented. None determines that a real motion is timely, that service was invalid, that good cause exists, or that a judgment must be reopened.

Example 1 — Forgetfulness

Facts

• Ordinary small-claims money default.
• Defendant received valid notice.
• Hearing was calendared correctly.
• Defendant says, “I forgot.”
• Motion filed 30 days after entry.
• Defendant asserts the debt belonged to someone else.

Route: §799.29.

Result: Thirty days is within the outer limit, but forgetfulness alone can be treated as inattention rather than excusable neglect. The wrong-person defense matters only after a credible good-cause showing. C004–C008, C011–C013.

Adverse branch: A documented emergency or court-notice defect could materially change the good-cause analysis.

Missing evidence: Summons, calendar records, communications, declaration, and identity records.

Example 2 — Credible emergency

Facts

• Defendant was hospitalized unexpectedly on the scheduled return date.
• Defendant promptly contacts the court after discharge.
• Motion includes medical-date evidence and a proposed answer showing prior payment.

Route: §799.29.

Conditional result: The facts can support mistake, surprise, or excusable circumstances and a potentially meritorious defense. Grant remains discretionary. C006, C011–C013, C020.

Adverse branch: An unrelated old medical issue or unsupported assertion might not explain the actual default or delay.

Example 3 — Alleged invalid service and voidness

Facts

• Judgment entered fourteen months ago.
• Defendant alleges no personal, substitute, mail, or publication service ever occurred.
• Defendant never appeared before judgment.

Potential routes

• Ordinary §799.29 is outside twelve months.
• §799.14 applies only if service was made by mail and its 15-day/one-year conditions are met.
• A genuine §806.07(d) voidness theory may be asserted, but controlling published small-claims authority did not conclusively resolve the timeliness interaction.

Conditional result: No conclusion of voidness is made. Actual service records and personal-jurisdiction law are essential. C024–C029.

Adverse branch: Service may have been valid by publication, or the defendant may have appeared and waived the objection.

Example 4 — Voluntary appearance

Facts

• Defendant received mailed summons but says it was late.
• Defendant appeared at the original return date and argued the merits without filing the §799.14 petition.
• Judgment later entered.

Result: Section 799.14 expressly does not apply to a defendant who actually appeared and submitted to jurisdiction without using the petition. Other timely relief might remain, but the special mail-no-notice route is unavailable on those facts. C029, C035–C038.

Adverse branch: An appearance limited solely to contesting jurisdiction may require a different waiver analysis.

Example 5 — Inside twelve months but unreasonable delay

Facts

• Judgment entered January 5, 2026.
• Defendant learned of it January 10.
• Nothing was done until December 20.
• Motion says only, “I want to present defenses.”

Result: The motion may be inside the twelve-month ceiling, but unexplained delay and absence of supporting facts can support denial. C007, C021.

Missing evidence: Reason for initial default, reason for delay, proposed defense, communications, and intervening circumstances.

Example 6 — Outer twelve-month calculation and closed clerk’s office

Facts

• Default judgment entered Friday, May 15, 2026.
• Ordinary §799.29 route.
• Twelve-month anniversary is Saturday, May 15, 2027.
• Assume the clerk’s office is closed Saturday and Monday is not a holiday.

Model

• Event day is excluded.
• Anniversary reference: May 15, 2027.
• Under §801.15’s clerk-closure rule, the modeled final filing day would move to Monday, May 17, 2027.

Limit: The statute speaks of when “notice of motion must be made.” This example does not resolve whether filing alone, service, or both must occur by the outer date or a local electronic-filing cutoff. C007, C015–C017.

Example 7 — Attempt to use catchall after twelve months

Facts

• Valid personal service.
• Ordinary default entered eighteen months ago.
• Movant invokes §806.07(1)(h), arguing it is unfair not to hear the defense.

Result: Published Mercado treats §799.29 as exclusive for the ordinary small-claims default route. The §806.07 catchall does not provide an end run around the twelve-month period. C004, C019, C031–C032.

Adverse branch: A genuinely void judgment is analytically different, but must actually be void.

Example 8 — Newly discovered record

Facts

• Within nine months after default, defendant discovers a previously inaccessible bank record showing payment.
• Defendant explains diligent earlier search and attaches the record.

Route: §799.29, using newly discovered evidence considerations as guideposts.

Required proof: Discovery after default, diligence, materiality, noncumulative character, and probability of changing the result. C022.

Adverse branch: A record that was always available but ignored may fail the diligence inquiry.

Example 9 — Fraud discovered on disputed date

Facts

• Judgment entered March 2, 2026.
• Defendant says plaintiff concealed a settlement agreement.
• Defendant claims discovery November 2, but plaintiff shows the document was received in April.

Result: The motion remains subject to §799.29’s outer period and discretionary good-cause analysis. The discovery date, diligence, materiality, and delay are disputed facts. C023.

Example 10 — Special mail-service 15-day clock

Facts

• Judgment entered December 1, 2025.
• Summons allegedly served by mail but never received.
• Defendant receives actual knowledge Monday, November 2, 2026.
• No applicable holiday in the 15-day interval.

Calculation

• November 2 is day zero.
• Fifteen calendar days later: Tuesday, November 17, 2026.
• One-year judgment cap: Tuesday, December 1, 2026.
• Earlier controlling modeled date: November 17, 2026.

A verified SC-511A petition must fit both limits. C035–C038.

Adverse branch: Actual appearance in the original action bars §799.14.

Example 11 — Special mail-service one-year cap controls

Facts

• Judgment entered December 1, 2025.
• Actual knowledge received November 20, 2026.
• Fifteen days from knowledge would extend beyond December 1.

Model

operative outer date = earlier of actual-knowledge date + 15 days, judgment-entry date + 1 year

The modeled one-year cap—December 1, 2026—controls.

Limit: Exact filing/service completion and clerk-hours questions remain local and technical. C035–C038.

Example 12 — Opponent fraud

Facts

• Plaintiff represented that no payments had been received.
• Defendant has receipts and alleges plaintiff knowingly concealed them.
• Motion filed within eight months with declarations and copies.

Result: Fraud or misconduct can support good cause, but the court must decide credibility, materiality, delay, and whether the receipts affect the amount or entire judgment. C023, C030.

Adverse branch: A bookkeeping disagreement or mistaken allocation is not necessarily fraud.

Example 13 — Paid or released judgment

Facts

• Judgment entered after default.
• Defendant later produces a signed pre-judgment settlement stating the account was fully resolved.
• Plaintiff disputes whether conditions were completed.

Result: Satisfaction, release, or discharge can support relief, but reopening is not automatic. The agreement, performance, timing, and scope must be proven. If money was collected and the judgment is later set aside, restoration under §806.09 requires a separate noticed motion and factual proof. C030, C042.

Example 14 — Clerical error versus merits error

Facts

• Branch A: clerk entered the defendant’s middle initial incorrectly.
• Branch B: defendant argues the judge used the wrong balance.

Result

• Branch A may fit GF-184A’s court-record correction route.
• Branch B is a substantive disagreement and does not become a clerical error merely by using GF-184A.

C045.

Example 15 — Bankruptcy-discharge claim

Facts

• Defendant asserts that the debt was discharged before judgment.
• Motion filed within twelve months.
• Bankruptcy documents are incomplete.

Result: Discharge can be a relevant §806.07(e) guidepost and merits defense, but this pass does not determine discharge scope, creditor notice, lien survival, or bankruptcy-court effect. The ordinary small-claims route and bankruptcy proof must both be established. C030, C048.

Example 16 — Commissioner decision confused with default judgment

Facts

• Both parties appeared.
• Commissioner heard the dispute and issued a decision.
• Losing party files SC-515A rather than using the commissioner-review route.

Result: A decision after appearance and hearing is not necessarily a default judgment. Demand-for-trial or appellate procedures can control instead. The proper clock is a separate future module. C044.

Example 17 — Enforcement already underway

Facts

• Ordinary §799.29 motion is filed while garnishment is pending.
• No stay order has been entered.

Result: Filing alone does not automatically stay the judgment or garnishment. The movant would need an actual court stay. The special §799.14 route differs because the statute mandates a stay when its petition predicates are met. C033–C038.

Example 18 — Mailed motion-hearing notice

Facts

• Hearing scheduled Wednesday, December 16, 2026.
• Motion is served by mail.
• Statewide service guide’s eight-business-day instruction is used.
• No holiday intervenes.

Counting backward eight business days gives Friday, December 4, 2026.

Limit: This is court-system guidance, not a universal statutory deadline; a court order or county practice can differ. C016.

G6. Old-to-new crosswalk and retained boundaries

27. P08 D2 old-to-new disposition

28. Evidence-backed article and tool opportunities

A. Wisconsin small-claims relief router

A conditional routing tool could ask:

• Was the judgment actually a default?
• Was the case small claims?
• Judgment-entry date?
• Was summons allegedly served by mail?
• Was it actually received?
• Actual-knowledge date?
• Did the defendant appear?
• Is improper venue alleged?
• Is the allegation genuine lack of personal jurisdiction?
• Why was the answer/hearing missed?
• What evidence supports the explanation?
• What proposed defense or claim exists?
• Has enforcement begun?
• Has a stay been ordered?

The output should classify possible routes without declaring a real judgment void or a motion timely.

B. Good-cause evidence checklist

A checklist can identify:

• declaration explaining default;
• documentary proof of emergency or notice failure;
• promptness chronology;
• proposed answer;
• payment, settlement, identity, or assignment proof;
• service records;
• military or bankruptcy records where actually relevant;
• motion filing receipt;
• service on other parties;
• hearing notice; and
• requested stay.

C. Conditional deadline display

A tool may display:

• twelve-month anniversary from entry;
• one-year improper-venue anniversary;
• earlier of 15 days after actual knowledge or one year after entry for §799.14;
• clerk-closure adjustment assumptions; and
• separate service/hearing-notice dates.

It must not certify which event satisfies “notice of motion made” or local e-filing cutoffs.

No tool, article, checklist, form packet, website, or publication was built or approved.

Source register — S_WI-P17-S001 onward

All fresh accesses occurred October 26, 2026 Pacific / October 27, 2026 UTC. Exact source-opening clock times are unknown.

Source-register count: 28.

Atomic claim register — S_WI-P17-C001 onward

Atomic-claim count: 53.

Complete granular coverage table

Core coverage rows: 101.

Category, territory, and procedural branches

Category/territorial rows: 15.

Deferred families

Deferred rows: 23.

Workflow inventory

Workflow count: 18.

Final researcher self-check

Materials freshly read

Freshly read or inspected:

• current official Wisconsin §799.29 indexed fragment and failed full-body route;
• 2025 read-aids for §§799.04, 799.14, 799.29, 801.14, 801.15, 805.15, 805.16, 806.07, 806.09, and 807.13;
• SC-515A, SC-515B, SC-511A, SC-511B, SC-6000V, SC-6050V, GF-184A, and the forms index;
• published Mercado, Mikrut, and Miller;
• official unpublished Ceron, Ripco, Benitez, Ryan, Zander, and Gregory.

PDF images actually inspected include:

• SC-511A printed p.1 / zero 0;
• SC-6050V printed p.2 / zero 1;
• Ceron printed pp.4 and 9 / zero 3 and 8;
• Ripco printed p.5 / zero 4; and
• GF-184A printed p.1 / zero 0.

Currentness and authority limits

• The complete current integrated Wisconsin statute bodies were not rendered.
• Published opinions are separated from unpublished one-judge opinions.
• Unpublished decisions are used only as persuasive illustrations or to identify unresolved questions.
• No commercial citator or all-opinion certification was performed.
• No statewide form is treated as proof of every county’s filing, hearing, remote-appearance, or fee practice.

Timing checks

The conditional timing models are internally correct under their stated assumptions:

• May 15, 2026 + 12 months = May 15, 2027; modeled clerk-closure extension to Monday, May 17.
• November 2, 2026 + 15 days = November 17, 2026.
• Earlier of November 17 and December 1, 2026 = November 17.
• Eight business days before December 16, 2026 = December 4, 2026 under the no-holiday guidance model.

These are not individualized filing deadlines. The exact event satisfying “notice of motion made,” local e-filing cutoff, court closure, service completion, and order-specific schedule remain factual.

Register reconciliation

Sources, claims, core coverage, categories, deferrals, workflows, crosswalks, and opportunities are counted separately.

No actions performed

No named consumer, creditor, debt buyer, collector, provider, attorney, company, property, account, judgment, docket, service return, bankruptcy record, payment record, or private case was searched.

No motion, petition, answer, affidavit, stay request, appeal, filing, form, complaint, service, contact, record request, payment, purchase, account change, API, new chat, subagent, local coordinator file, website change, or publication occurred.

This is the researcher’s self-check, not independent review, complete current-law certification, an individualized timeliness, service, voidness, or reopening opinion, operational approval, publication approval, or acceptance of Wisconsin PASS-17, A066, A097, A098, or the parent dossier.

END S_WI PASS-17.