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

SettleADebt S_WI PASS-21

Wisconsin ordinary-civil default-judgment relief under §806.07

Fresh access date: October 26, 2026, America/Los_Angeles; October 27, 2026 UTC. Exact individual source-opening times are unknown.

Scope: Relief from an ordinary Wisconsin circuit-court civil default judgment under §806.07, with the necessary default, motion, service, computation, stay, and restoration rules. This does not adopt the small-claims, arbitration, garnishment, execution, or exemption reports as premises.

Principal finding: The statute does not impose one universal one-year limit. Grounds (a) and (c) require a motion within a reasonable time and no more than one year after the specified event. Ground (b) has a separate cross-reference. Grounds (e)–(h) have the reasonable-time requirement without that express one-year cap. Published Wisconsin authority excludes a genuinely void judgment from the reasonable-time restriction, but ordinary error or loss of court competency is not automatically voidness.

A second important finding is procedural: §802.01(2)(e) defines when a noticed motion is “made”—when it is served with its notice of motion. Filing alone is not the definition. Filing, valid service, supporting papers, hearing notice, and electronic-service conditions must still be satisfied. Justia Law+2

1. Evidence status and currentness

The official integrated §806.07 endpoint timed out:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/806/07

The official chapter index reported statutes updated through 2025 Wisconsin Act 247, but an index is not the operative body. The genuinely different official published-format alternative read was Bank One Wisconsin v. Kahl, whose ¶13 reproduces the complete relevant §806.07(1)(a)–(h) and (2) text. That is an official court publication of historical statutory text, not a current consolidated statute. The fresh 2025 statutory reproductions supply the complete contiguous provisions but are expressly nonofficial read-aids. (Invalid URL)

The §806.07 reproduction’s history lists the 1975 rules, 1975 chapter 218, and 1997 Act 114. No later amendment is shown there. That supports continuity but does not certify the entire amendment chain through October 2026.

Accordingly:

• statutory conclusions below retain a current integrated-body hold;
• published opinions were freshly read rather than borrowed from earlier passes;
• historical opinions’ shorthand about “one year” is not substituted for the complete statutory text;
• no unpublished opinion is relied on as authority; and
• no complete citator or county-rule review was performed.

All C references below are full IDs S_WI-P21-C001 onward; all S references are S_WI-P21-S001 onward.

2. Necessary ordinary-default gateway

2.1 What kind of default is involved?

Section 806.02 distinguishes several situations:

Default does not eliminate the court’s duty to receive facts necessary to render the judgment or determine the amount. This is only the gateway needed to identify the judgment being challenged—not a full commencement, liability, or damages report. C004–C006.

Read-aid body: https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-806/section-806-02/, subsections (1)–(5). Justia Law

2.2 Who can seek relief?

Section 806.07 permits a party or legal representative to seek relief from a judgment, order, or stipulation. It is not restricted to losing defendants. In Kahl, the prevailing creditor’s request to escape its own foreclosure judgment fell within §806.07, although relief was denied. Entry of judgment also meant the creditor could not simply use pre-judgment voluntary dismissal to erase it. C003.

Primary opinion: https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5090, ¶¶10–18. Wisconsin Court System

3. Complete grounds and clocks

3.1 Ground-by-ground matrix

The following reflects the complete §806.07(1)–(2) text read, with the identified case qualifications.

C007–C025. The statute also contains an adoptive-parent exclusion in subsection (3); that special family-law branch is outside this consumer-money scope. C047.

Complete reproduced statute: https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-806/section-806-07/.

Official historical quotation: https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5090, ¶13. Justia Law+1

3.2 Entry is not rendition, notice, or discovery

A judgment is entered when filed in the clerk’s office. Signing, oral announcement, service of notice of entry, and the debtor’s discovery of the judgment are distinct events.

For grounds (a) and (c), §806.07(2) uses:

• judgment entry; or
• the date the order or stipulation was made.

It does not generally restart the one-year period upon learning of the judgment or discovering the asserted misconduct. C009–C010.

Read-aid: https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-806/section-806-06/, §806.06(1)(a)–(d). Justia Law

3.3 Reasonable time is an additional requirement

A motion can be too late even when brought within one year. In Rhodes v. Terry, the Supreme Court affirmed denial where a defaulted party waited more than six months after judgment despite notice and opportunities to act. The Court examined the particular facts; it did not establish six months as a universal maximum. C008.

Published opinion reproduced at: https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/1979/76-661-7.html, 91 Wis. 2d 165, 170–177 (1979). This is judicial opinion text on a nonofficial host, not a case-summary substitute. Justia Law

3.4 The court cannot simply enlarge the §806.07 period

Section 801.15(2)(c) excludes §806.07’s prescribed time from discretionary enlargement. Miro Tool held that equitable estoppel could not enlarge the one-year period for the ordinary mistake/neglect motion on the facts before it. The circuit court had separately rejected extraordinary circumstances. C027.

Primary opinion: https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=9790, DISCUSSION, beginning with the analysis of §806.07(1)(a) and the one-year limit; CONCLUSION. The opinion has unnumbered judicial paragraphs—viewer line numbers are not paragraph numbers. Wisconsin Court System

The rule against enlargement is different from applying the statute’s built-in weekend or clerk-closure computation rule.

4. Substantive qualifications

4.1 Mistake and neglect: a defense is necessary, but it need not be proved victorious

J.L. Phillips establishes two requirements for default relief under paragraph (a):

1. qualifying mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; and
2. a meritorious defense.

A meritorious defense is a defense good at law—enough to survive judgment on the pleadings. It is not a requirement to demonstrate a probable trial victory or defeat summary judgment through affidavits. Facts explaining the default still need support. The Supreme Court did not review the lower court’s excusable-neglect finding in that case. C011–C012.

Primary opinion: https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=17178, ¶¶9, 18, 23–31, 33–36 and footnote 5. Wisconsin Court System+1

4.2 Newly discovered evidence: exact linkage and the no-verdict gap

Section 805.15(3) requires that the evidence:

• came to the moving party’s attention after trial;
• was not missed because of insufficient diligence;
• is material and noncumulative; and
• probably would change the result.

Section 805.16(4) describes a newly discovered-evidence motion within one year after the verdict, with a decision entered within 90 days after the motion is made or the motion is deemed denied. C013–C014.

Read-aids:

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-805/section-805-15/, §805.15(3). https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-805/section-805-16/, §805.16(4). Justia Law+1

Unresolved application: A pure default may have no trial or verdict. The bounded search did not establish controlling published authority translating this linked verdict trigger into an exact default-judgment clock. This report therefore does not invent “one year after entry under (b),” declare paragraph (b) categorically unavailable, or treat it as unlimited.

A newly found receipt might also support another ground, but only if that ground’s own requirements are met.

4.3 Fraud by an adverse party

Paragraph (c) concerns fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of the adverse party. A factual disagreement, disappointing testimony, or an unsupported suspicion does not itself establish the ground. The moving party must identify the misconduct, its connection to the judgment, supporting evidence, and timing. The ordinary motion retains both reasonable-time and one-year restrictions. C015.

Fraud on the court and an independent equitable action are distinct preserved avenues, discussed below—not automatic extensions of paragraph (c). Justia Law+1

4.4 Genuine voidness versus competency or technical error

Mikrut distinguishes constitutional subject-matter jurisdiction from a circuit court’s statutory competency. Failure to comply with a statutory prerequisite may affect competency without making the judgment void, and competency objections can be waived. A truly void judgment, by contrast, is not subject to §806.07’s reasonable-time restriction. C016, C018.

Primary opinion: https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=16730, majority ¶¶8–10, 31–38. The concurrence is not treated as the holding. Wisconsin Court System

Cintas applied the distinction to personal jurisdiction. Naming one separate corporation but obtaining default against another was a fundamental defect. Actual awareness did not cure it. The majority distinguishes fundamental defects from technical defects, for which absence of prejudice can matter, and places the stated service-defect burden on the complainant. C017.

Primary opinion: https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=80134, majority ¶¶22–28, 38–40. The Bradley dissent is separate. Wisconsin Court System

Waiver matters: Section 802.06(8) provides rules for losing personal-jurisdiction, process, and service defenses through omission from the relevant motion or pleading. An appearance is not universally equivalent to waiver; what was raised, omitted, and preserved must be examined. C019.

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-802/section-802-06/, subsections (7)–(8). Justia Law

4.5 Satisfaction, release, discharge, prior judgments, and prospective relief

For paragraph (e), obtain the actual payment evidence, settlement/release language, performance, and judgment identity. A partial payment supports neither automatic total discharge nor automatic vacatur. Bankruptcy-discharge scope requires separate federal analysis. C020.

Paragraph (f) requires an actual prior judgment on which the challenged judgment was based—not simply a later case announcing different law. C021.

For paragraph (g), Kahl describes equitable prospective relief and still requires reasonable time. The present burdens of paying an ordinary fixed money judgment do not, without more, establish the prospective-equity predicate. C022.

Primary opinion: https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5090, ¶¶13–18. Its foreclosure posture is not generalized into this report’s consumer-debt facts. Wisconsin Court System

4.6 Paragraph (h): overlap is possible, but relabeling is insufficient

Two propositions must be kept together:

• A party cannot escape an expired specific-ground period merely by renaming the claim “extraordinary circumstances.”
• Wisconsin does not impose rigid factual mutual exclusivity: facts involving mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud may also support paragraph (h) if genuinely extraordinary circumstances justify relief.

M.L.B. expressly reconciles those propositions. Its paternity/support facts are not consumer-debt facts; the legal framework, not its outcome, is used here. C023–C024.

Published opinion reproduced at: https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/1985/83-1348-9.html, 122 Wis. 2d 536, 549–555 (1985). Justia Law

Miller confirms that a finding of excusable neglect is not a prerequisite to paragraph (h). Its nonexclusive factors include informed choice, counsel, whether merits were heard, a meritorious defense, and intervening equities. C025.

Primary opinion: https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=52041, majority ¶¶29–44, 48–61. Wisconsin Court System

4.7 Hearing is conditional—not automatic on a conclusory motion

Under Miller, the court first tests whether the alleged facts, assumed true for that threshold inquiry, would constitute extraordinary circumstances. If so, it must hold a hearing to determine their truth. The moving party still bears the burden; assuming allegations true at the threshold does not establish them at the evidentiary stage. C026.

The decision’s direction to treat the answer as timely in that particular case is not a universal effect of filing a paragraph (h) motion. Wisconsin Court System

5. Independent action and fraud-on-court boundaries

5.1 Two powers are preserved

Section 806.07(2) preserves:

1. an independent action for relief from a judgment, order, or proceeding; and
2. the power to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.

Walker rejects the proposition that every independent action must itself be a fraud-on-the-court action. C028.

Primary opinion: https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10579, unnumbered discussion beginning “Here, the trial court found…”, followed by the enumerated equitable prerequisites and the conclusion. Wisconsin Court System

5.2 Independent equitable relief has demanding predicates

Walker and Dekker identify:

• a judgment inequitable to enforce;
• a good underlying defense;
• fraud, accident, or mistake preventing the party from obtaining the benefit of that defense;
• absence of the claimant’s own fault or negligence; and
• absence of an adequate remedy at law.

Laches, diligence, and clean hands remain important. An expired ordinary motion does not automatically establish the last two requirements. C029.

Primary opinion: https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11692, unnumbered discussion beginning “The elements of an independent action are…” and “Dekker’s hands are not clean.” Wisconsin Court System

5.3 Contradictory evidence is not automatically fraud on the court

Dekker affirmed dismissal where the challenger had failed to participate and protect his rights and later offered contradictory evidence suggesting perjury. It did not establish that every instance of perjury is categorically irrelevant; it rejected that claimant’s inadequate equitable and fraud-on-the-court showing. C030.

No universal independent-action limitation period, damages claim, pleading package, or commencement procedure is supplied here. Those remain separate modules. Wisconsin Court System

6. Making, serving, filing, and hearing the motion

6.1 Required writing and papers

Unless made during a hearing or trial, §802.01 requires a written motion stating particular grounds and the requested relief. A properly written notice of hearing can satisfy the writing requirement. Supporting records and papers not previously filed or served must accompany the notice and be identified. Additional hearing evidence requires a reasonable opportunity for the opponent to meet it. C031.

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-802/section-802-01/, §802.01(2)(a)–(d). law.justia.com

6.2 Exact “made” rule

Section 802.01(2)(e) states that, for statutory procedural periods, a motion requiring notice under §801.15(4) is deemed made when served with its notice of motion. Thus:

• filing alone is not the defined event;
• mailing a draft without a legally sufficient motion/notice is not assumed sufficient;
• the legally permitted service method matters; and
• proof of the event must be retained.

C032. An official indexed fragment also exposes this rule, but the complete current official section was not rendered.

Official indexed locator: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/802.01%282%29%28b%29

Contiguous read-aid: https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-802/section-802-01/. Wisconsin Legislative Documents+1

6.3 Service and filing remain separate duties

Under §801.14:

• written motions generally go to the required parties;
• service ordinarily goes to counsel for a represented party unless the court directs otherwise;
• the statute has exceptions for parties in default for failure to appear and special treatment of new claims;
• mail service is generally complete on mailing;
• email service outside the e-filing system requires the specified consent;
• limited-scope representation can require service on both counsel and the party; and
• papers required to be served must be filed within a reasonable time after service.

C033–C034.

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-801/section-801-14/, subsections (1), (2), (2m), and (4). Justia Law

6.4 Hearing notice and time computation

Section 801.15 generally requires:

• written motion/hearing notice at least five days before the hearing, unless another statute or order applies;
• supporting affidavits served with the motion;
• opposing affidavits at least one day before the hearing, unless allowed otherwise;
• exclusion of the triggering day;
• inclusion of the last day unless the clerk’s office is closed; and
• exclusion of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays for periods shorter than 11 days.

C035–C036.

The three-day mail addition applies when a recipient must act within a period after service. It does not add three days to the movant’s entry-based one-year §806.07 deadline. C037.

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-801/section-801-15/, subsections (1), (2)(c), (4), and (5). Justia Law

6.5 Electronic filing does not erase service conditions

The reproduced §801.18(4) provides that a submission completed by 11:59 p.m. Central time, if subsequently accepted, is treated as filed that day. The notice of activity can constitute service on registered users when personal service is not required. Paper parties must receive traditional service; a rejected submission or an unregistered recipient creates different issues. C038.

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-801/section-801-18/, subsections (4) and (6). Justia Law+1

This is not an operational clearance for a real last-minute submission. Acceptance, system records, recipient status, outages, local hearing procedures, and any order must be checked.

7. Stay, effect of relief, restoration, and separate routes

7.1 No automatic stay

Section 806.07(2) expressly says the motion does not affect finality or suspend operation. Section 806.08(2) separately permits a stay pending a relief motion on conditions the court considers proper for the adverse party’s security. No universal bond amount or automatic stay is established. C039–C040.

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-806/section-806-08/, §806.08(2). Justia Law

7.2 Relief is defined by the court’s order

A grant can concern all or part of a judgment and can impose just terms. It does not automatically:

• win the underlying case;
• reinstate a particular answer;
• remove every lien or public record;
• return seized property;
• refund payments;
• terminate every enforcement proceeding; or
• restart an appeal period.

The order’s precise scope and further procedures govern. C041.

7.3 Restoration after collection

Section 806.09(1) provides for restoration when a judgment or part of it has been collected and is later set aside or reversed. It requires notice, motion, and proof of facts. Restoration includes interest from collection. If a new trial is ordered, retention on a properly secured bond may be allowed. A qualifying good-faith purchaser for value without notice is protected. C042.

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-806/section-806-09/, subsection (1). Justia Law

7.4 Motion, appeal, new trial, satisfaction, and correction are distinct

C043–C044. The official GF-184A expressly distinguishes a record error from disagreement with the court’s decision.

https://www.wicourts.gov/formdisplay/GF-184A.pdf?formNumber=GF-184A&formType=Form&formatId=2&language=en, rev. 11/20, one unnumbered page, zero-based PDF index 0, visually inspected. Wisconsin Court System

8. Published-authority grid

All decisions relied upon below are published. No unpublished search result is used as authority. Majority holdings are separated from concurrences, dissents, historical statutory text, and the particular case’s posture.

C046. No complete citator, later-order inventory, or all-source current-law certification is claimed.

9. Fictional workflows and conditional models

Each workflow is invented. The “next act” describes the relevant legal route, not instructions for an actual filing.

Model A — One-year trigger is entry, not later notice

Stipulated facts: Judgment signed February 27, 2026; filed/entered Monday, March 2, 2026; notice received June 8, 2026. Ground (a) or (c).

• Entry is day zero.
• One calendar year from entry reaches Tuesday, March 2, 2027.
• June 8 notice does not restart that statutory year.
• A noticed motion must be served with its notice under §802.01(2)(e); filing and supporting-paper duties remain.
• A much earlier date may be required by “reasonable time.”

This models only the outer statutory anniversary, not an actual last permissible instant. C008–C010, C032–C034.

Model B — Weekend and clerk closure

Stipulated facts: Entry Friday, May 15, 2026. The one-year anniversary is Saturday, May 15, 2027. Assume the clerk’s office is closed that Saturday and Monday is not a legal holiday.

Under the read §801.15 computation, the modeled endpoint moves to Monday, May 17, 2027. This is application of the counting rule, not discretionary enlargement for neglect.

Actual service completion, electronic-user status, acceptance, and court orders remain necessary. C009, C032, C036–C038.

Model C — Five-day hearing notice

Stipulated facts: Hearing Wednesday, December 16, 2026; notice personally delivered Wednesday, December 9; no intervening legal holiday or different court order.

Exclude service day and, because the period is under 11 days, skip Saturday/Sunday:

This illustrates the five-day notice period. No mail addition is used. Supporting affidavits accompany the motion; opposing-paper rules remain separate. C035–C037.

Model D — Conditional restoration base

Stipulated facts: The court later sets aside the relevant judgment portion. Proof shows collections of $2,000 and $750 from the movant, with no allocation dispute.

Modeled collected principal to be addressed = $2,000 + $750 = $2,750.

Section 806.09 separately requires the restoration process and applicable interest. No interest rate is assumed, no actual award is calculated, and a new-trial bond or good-faith purchaser issue could alter the remedy. C042.

10. Source register — S_WI-P21-S001 onward

Access convention for every row: fresh access on October 26, 2026 Pacific / October 27, 2026 UTC; exact opening time unknown. HTML sources have no PDF index. Unnumbered judicial paragraphs are identified by headings or text anchors—not browser line numbers.

Source rows: 24. Repeated uses are not independent authorities.

11. Atomic claim register — S_WI-P21-C001 onward

Every claim remains A066/A097/A098 open. “Supported” here means supported within the stated source and application limits—not coordinator acceptance.

Atomic claims: 48.

12. Granular core coverage

Core coverage rows: 70.

13. Local and territorial gap inventory

Local implementation—all 72 counties unexamined individually

Local rows: 8.

Territorial/special categories

Territorial rows: 8.

Deferred families

Deferred rows: 12.

14. P08 D2 crosswalk and opportunities

Crosswalk rows: 6.

Three evidence-backed opportunities follow from this research: an ordinary-civil ground classifier that distinguishes (a)–(h); a service-and-deadline worksheet that separates entry, service, filing, hearing, and reasonable time; and a relief-versus-enforcement checklist that distinguishes filing, stay, vacatur, merits litigation, and restoration. None was built or approved for publication.

Final researcher self-check

Freshness: No legal conclusion was adopted from an unreviewed earlier pass. The statutory reproductions, official published opinions, and GF-184A were freshly accessed. Kahl’s official statutory quotation is labeled historical; Justia reproductions are not called current official bodies.

Opinion status: Ten published decisions are used. No unpublished discovery result is cited as authority. Majority holdings, case facts, historical versions, concurrences, and dissents remain distinct.

Specific unresolved points: Current integrated Wisconsin bodies; the precise paragraph (b) clock for a no-verdict default; complete later case treatment; actual service/filing acceptance; and every county-specific implementation question.

Calculations: The three date models and restoration sum are conditional. They establish no actual deadline, timely motion, void judgment, stay, award, or refund.

Comparisons, models, opportunities, and audits are not counted again as new core coverage.

No actual party, docket, judgment, service return, account, creditor, borrower, provider, property, or private record was queried. No filing, contact, complaint, account action, local coordinator-file write, or publication occurred.

This is a scoped research report—not independent review, complete current-law certification, an individualized relief opinion, or acceptance of Wisconsin PASS-21, any component, A066/A097/A098, or the parent dossier.

END S_WI PASS-21