Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 767.117 (2026)
Prohibited acts during pendency of action
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
767.117(1)(1) Prohibitions. In an action affecting the family, the petitioner upon filing the petition, the joint petitioners upon filing the joint petition and the respondent upon service of the petition are prohibited from doing any of the following:
767.117(1)(a)(a) Harassing, intimidating, physically abusing or imposing any restraint on the personal liberty of the other party or a minor child of either of the parties.
767.117(1)(b)(b) If the action is one under s. 767.001 (1) (a), (b), (c), (d), (h), or (i), encumbering, concealing, damaging, destroying, transferring, or otherwise disposing of property owned by either or both of the parties, without the consent of the other party or an order of the court, except in the usual course of business, in order to secure necessities, or in order to pay reasonable costs and expenses of the action, including attorney fees.
767.117(1)(c)(c) Unless the action is one under s. 767.001 (1) (g) or (h), without the consent of the other party or an order of the court, relocating and establishing a residence with a minor child of the parties more than 100 driving miles from the residence of the other party, removing a minor child of the parties from the state for more than 90 consecutive days, or concealing a minor child of the parties from the other party.
767.117(2)(2) Duration of prohibitions. The prohibitions under sub. (1) shall apply until the action is dismissed, until a final judgment in the action is entered, or until the court orders otherwise.
767.117(3)(a)(a) Except as provided in par. (b), a party who violates any provision of sub. (1) may be proceeded against under ch. 785 for contempt of court.
767.117(3)(b)(b) An act in violation of sub. (1) (c) is not a contempt of court if the court finds that the action was taken to protect a party or a minor child of the parties from physical abuse by the other party and that there was no reasonable opportunity under the circumstances for the party to obtain an order under sub. (2) authorizing the action.
767.117 HistoryHistory: 1993 a. 78; 2001 a. 61; 2005 a. 443 ss. 51, 64; Stats. 2005 s. 767.117; 2017 a. 203; 2025 a. 81.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: Frisch v. Henrichs, 2007 WI 102 (Wis. 2007).
Frisch v. Henrichs, 2007 WI 102 (Wis. 2007). “Stat. § 767.27 (2m) (2003-04). The chapter contains other references to "contempt" but does not tie them to Chapter 785.”
Chase Hess Colletti v. Michelle Laura Colletti (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “At no place in her July 10, 2024 letter to the court, nor at the hearing the next day, did Michelle refer to § 767.117. More broadly, she did not refer to any related concept involving alleged concealment or deception.”
Angela Jean Strunsee v. Jeffrey Alan La Bri (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “As Angela concedes in her briefing, the amounts she now complains of were all spent by Jeffrey during the pendency of the divorce and not within one 12 Angela argues, for the first time in her reply brief in the cross-appeal, that Jeffrey’s purchase of the liquor was a violation…”
Andrew J. Baxter v. Jessica L. Baxter (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “” The court also noted that Jessica was unreasonably “shooting at the moon and hoping to get the stars.”
Nicole Huiras v. Nathan Huiras (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “The court’s September 21 order states that it is a “[r]emedial [s]anction[],” and the court ordered that for Nathan to purge the contempt and avoid the ordered thirty days in jail, he would have to pay $1,500 to “Attorney Jessica Grundburg Client Trust Account[].” The court…”
Christopher William Rose v. Tammy Jo Rose (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 767.117(1)(c) (prohibiting “removing a minor child of the parties from the state for more than 90 consecutive days”).”
— Wis. Stat. § 767.117(1) — 1 case
Nicole Huiras v. Nathan Huiras (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “The court’s September 21 order states that it is a “[r]emedial [s]anction[],” and the court ordered that for Nathan to purge the contempt and avoid the ordered thirty days in jail, he would have to pay $1,500 to “Attorney Jessica Grundburg Client Trust Account[].” The court…”
— Wis. Stat. § 767.117(1)(b) — 3 cases
Chase Hess Colletti v. Michelle Laura Colletti (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “At no place in her July 10, 2024 letter to the court, nor at the hearing the next day, did Michelle refer to § 767.117. More broadly, she did not refer to any related concept involving alleged concealment or deception.”
Andrew J. Baxter v. Jessica L. Baxter (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “” The court also noted that Jessica was unreasonably “shooting at the moon and hoping to get the stars.”
Angela Jean Strunsee v. Jeffrey Alan La Bri (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “As Angela concedes in her briefing, the amounts she now complains of were all spent by Jeffrey during the pendency of the divorce and not within one 12 Angela argues, for the first time in her reply brief in the cross-appeal, that Jeffrey’s purchase of the liquor was a violation…”
— Wis. Stat. § 767.117(1)(c) — 1 case
Christopher William Rose v. Tammy Jo Rose (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 767.117(1)(c) (prohibiting “removing a minor child of the parties from the state for more than 90 consecutive days”).”
— Wis. Stat. § 767.117(3) — 1 case
Chase Hess Colletti v. Michelle Laura Colletti (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “At no place in her July 10, 2024 letter to the court, nor at the hearing the next day, did Michelle refer to § 767.117. More broadly, she did not refer to any related concept involving alleged concealment or deception.”
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.