Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 421.401 (2026)
Venue
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
421.401(1)(1) The venue for a claim arising out of a consumer transaction or a consumer credit transaction is the county:
421.401(1)(c)(c) Where the customer sought or acquired the property, services, money or credit which is the subject of the transaction or signed the document evidencing his or her obligation under the terms of the transaction.
421.401(2)(2) When it appears from the return of service of the summons or otherwise that the county in which the action is pending under sub. (1) is not a proper place of trial for such action, unless the defendant appears and waives the improper venue, the court shall act as follows:
421.401(2)(a)(a) Except as provided in par. (b), if it appears that another county would be a proper place of trial, the court shall transfer the action to that county.
421.401(2)(b)(b) If the action arises out of a consumer credit transaction, the court shall dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.
421.401(3)(3) If there are several defendants, and if venue is based on residence, venue may be in the county of residence of any of them.
421.401 AnnotationAn improperly venued action arising from a consumer credit transaction shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under sub. (2) (b). When the court fails to dismiss, the action is invalid. Kett v. Community Credit Plan, Inc., 228 Wis. 2d 1, 596 N.W.2d 786 (1999), 97-3620.
421.401 AnnotationAlthough voluntarily dismissed, prosecution of improperly venued actions violated the Wisconsin Consumer Act, and the defendants were prevailing parties under s. 425.308 entitled to attorney fees. Community Credit Plan, Inc. v. Johnson, 228 Wis. 2d 30, 596 N.W.2d 799 (1999), 97-0574.
421.401 AnnotationSections 801.50 and 801.51, the general venue statutes, do not apply to actions arising from consumer credit transactions. Rather, the venue provision in this section applies. Brunton v. Nuvell Credit Corp., 2010 WI 50, 325 Wis. 2d 135, 785 N.W.2d 302, 07-1253.
421.401 AnnotationSub. (2) (b) states that an improperly venued consumer credit action must be dismissed unless the defendant appears and waives the improper venue. Appearance in the action and pleading in the action are distinct requirements. Waiver under sub. (2) requires the intentional relinquishment of a known right. To establish a valid waiver, it must be proved that the defendant knew the place of proper venue and knew of the right to dismissal of the case when it was not properly venued. A plaintiff must prove that the rights to proper venue and dismissal of an improperly venued action were intentionally relinquished. Continued litigation of an action does not unambiguously demonstrate an intention to relinquish the right to proper venue. Brunton v. Nuvell Credit Corp., 2010 WI 50, 325 Wis. 2d 135, 785 N.W.2d 302, 07-1253.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Brunton v. Nuvell Credit Corp., 2010 WI 50 (Wis. 2010).
Brunton v. Nuvell Credit Corp., 2010 WI 50 (Wis. 2010). “The dispositive issue in this case is whether under Wis. Stat. § 421.401 (2) (2007-08) [3] Nuvell "appear[ed] and waive[d] the improper venue" such that dismissal of the action, which arose out of a consumer credit transaction, was not required.”
Kett v. Cmty. Credit Plan, Inc., 596 N.W.2d 786 (Wis. 1999). “As we have said, Community Credit and the customers agree that the default replevin judgments were invalid because the replevin actions against the customers were commenced in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in violation of the venue statute, Wis. Stat. § 421.401 . [9] Indeed…”
Cmty. Credit Plan, Inc. v. Johnson, 596 N.W.2d 799 (Wis. 1999). “This case is a consumer credit transaction case to which Wis. Stat. § 421.401 (2)(b) applies. ¶ 3.”
Sec. Fin. v. Brian Kirsch, 926 N.W.2d 167 (Wis. 2019). “¶34 The question both here and in Kett is whether a creditor trying to collect a debt arising from a consumer credit transaction engaged in collection practices prohibited by Wis.”
Cmty. Credit Plan, Inc. v. Johnson, 586 N.W.2d 77 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “Section 421.401, STATS., governing venue in a consumer credit transaction, is broadly written.”
Kett v. Cmty. Credit Plan, Inc., 586 N.W.2d 68 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “The customers' claims are based on violations of the venue provision in the WCA, § 421.401, Stats. 2 The customers' arguments can be summarized as follows.”
State v. Soto, 2012 WI 93 (Wis. 2012). “2d 135, ¶ 36 (defendant's waiver of right to proper venue under Wis. Stat. § 421.401 (2)). ¶ 63. Similarly, in State v.”
Mercado v. GE Money Bank, 2009 WI App 73 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “The Kett court concluded that the failure to have proper venue rendered the judgments void in accordance with Wis. Stat. § 421.401 (2)(b), which plainly stated: "[i]f the action arises out of a consumer credit transaction, the court shall dismiss the action for lack of…”
Brunton v. Nuvell Credit Corp., 2009 WI App 3 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “The circuit court granted Nuvell's motion for summary judgment upon concluding that under Wis. Stat. § 421.401 (2)(b) (2005-06) 1 venue was improper and therefore it lacked competency to proceed.”
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. City of Milwaukee, 2012 WI 65 (Wis. 2012). “, concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("If the legislature wanted to allow only express waiver under § 421.401(2), it could have said so."); In re Torrance P.”
Cottonwood Fin., Ltd. v. Estes, 2012 WI App 12 (Wis. 2012). “Estes claims the venue provision authorizes arbitration outside her home county, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 421.401 , which she asserts limits venue to a customer's home county.”
Cottonwood Fin., Ltd. v. Estes, 2010 WI App 75 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “Estes claims the arbitration provision authorizes arbitration outside her home county, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 421.401 , which she asserts limits venue to a consumer's home county.”
— Wis. Stat. § 421.401(1) — 2 cases
Brunton v. Nuvell Credit Corp., 2010 WI 50 (Wis. 2010). “The dispositive issue in this case is whether under Wis. Stat. § 421.401 (2) (2007-08) [3] Nuvell "appear[ed] and waive[d] the improper venue" such that dismissal of the action, which arose out of a consumer credit transaction, was not required.”
Cmty. Credit Plan, Inc. v. Johnson, 586 N.W.2d 77 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “Section 421.401, STATS., governing venue in a consumer credit transaction, is broadly written.”
— Wis. Stat. § 421.401(2) — 6 cases
Brunton v. Nuvell Credit Corp., 2010 WI 50 (Wis. 2010). “The dispositive issue in this case is whether under Wis. Stat. § 421.401 (2) (2007-08) [3] Nuvell "appear[ed] and waive[d] the improper venue" such that dismissal of the action, which arose out of a consumer credit transaction, was not required.”
Cmty. Credit Plan, Inc. v. Johnson, 586 N.W.2d 77 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “Section 421.401, STATS., governing venue in a consumer credit transaction, is broadly written.”
Cmty. Credit Plan, Inc. v. Johnson, 596 N.W.2d 799 (Wis. 1999). “This case is a consumer credit transaction case to which Wis. Stat. § 421.401 (2)(b) applies. ¶ 3.”
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. City of Milwaukee, 2012 WI 65 (Wis. 2012). “, concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("If the legislature wanted to allow only express waiver under § 421.401(2), it could have said so."); In re Torrance P.”
Brunton v. Nuvell Credit Corp., 2009 WI App 3 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “The circuit court granted Nuvell's motion for summary judgment upon concluding that under Wis. Stat. § 421.401 (2)(b) (2005-06) 1 venue was improper and therefore it lacked competency to proceed.”
— Wis. Stat. § 421.401(2)(a) — 1 case
Cmty. Credit Plan, Inc. v. Johnson, 596 N.W.2d 799 (Wis. 1999). “This case is a consumer credit transaction case to which Wis. Stat. § 421.401 (2)(b) applies. ¶ 3.”
— Wis. Stat. § 421.401(2)(b) — 6 cases
Brunton v. Nuvell Credit Corp., 2010 WI 50 (Wis. 2010). “The dispositive issue in this case is whether under Wis. Stat. § 421.401 (2) (2007-08) [3] Nuvell "appear[ed] and waive[d] the improper venue" such that dismissal of the action, which arose out of a consumer credit transaction, was not required.”
Kett v. Cmty. Credit Plan, Inc., 596 N.W.2d 786 (Wis. 1999). “As we have said, Community Credit and the customers agree that the default replevin judgments were invalid because the replevin actions against the customers were commenced in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in violation of the venue statute, Wis. Stat. § 421.401 . [9] Indeed…”
Kett v. Cmty. Credit Plan, Inc., 586 N.W.2d 68 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “The customers' claims are based on violations of the venue provision in the WCA, § 421.401, Stats. 2 The customers' arguments can be summarized as follows.”
Cmty. Credit Plan, Inc. v. Johnson, 596 N.W.2d 799 (Wis. 1999). “This case is a consumer credit transaction case to which Wis. Stat. § 421.401 (2)(b) applies. ¶ 3.”
Johnson v. Berge, 2003 WI App 51 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
— Wis. Stat. § 421.401(l) — 1 case
Kett v. Cmty. Credit Plan, Inc., 586 N.W.2d 68 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “The customers' claims are based on violations of the venue provision in the WCA, § 421.401, Stats. 2 The customers' arguments can be summarized as follows.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.