Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 767.17 (2026)
De novo review
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
767.17(1)(1) Right to de novo review. Any decision of a circuit court commissioner under this chapter shall be reviewed by the judge of the branch of court to which the case has been assigned, upon motion of any party. Any determination, order, or ruling by a circuit court commissioner under this chapter may be certified to the branch of court to which the case has been assigned, upon a motion of any party for a hearing de novo. A party is required to be present at the hearing in order to seek a de novo review. The right to seek a de novo review does not apply to stipulations entered into between the parties. Notices requesting a hearing de novo will not stay the order unless the trial court specifically grants a stay of the order.
767.17(2)(2) Time limits. If a party seeks to have the trial court conduct a hearing de novo of a determination, order, or ruling entered by a court commissioner in an action affecting the family under this chapter, the party shall file a motion for a hearing de novo within 20 calendar days of the oral decision of the court commissioner or within 20 calendar days of the mailing of a written decision or order by the court commissioner if the decision or order was not given orally by the court commissioner at the time of the hearing. As set forth under s. 801.15 (1), 20 calendar days are counted consecutively and include weekends and holidays.
767.17(3)(3) Hearing. The court shall hold a hearing de novo no later than 60 days from the date of the filing of the motion under this section, except as otherwise required under s. 767.481.
767.17 AnnotationThe phrase “hearing de novo” means that the circuit court conducts literally a new hearing, which requires the circuit court to take a fresh look at the issues, including the taking of testimony. Jahimiak v. Jahimiak, 2024 WI App 5, 410 Wis. 2d 557, 2 N.W.3d 756, 23-0573.
767.17 AnnotationThe 60-day time limit in sub. (3) is directory, not mandatory. Jahimiak v. Jahimiak, 2024 WI App 5, 410 Wis. 2d 557, 2 N.W.3d 756, 23-0573.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2016–2026 · leading case: Ann Marie Jahimiak v. David Ralph Jahimiak, 2024 WI App 5 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
Ann Marie Jahimiak v. David Ralph Jahimiak, 2024 WI App 5 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 767.17 was significantly changed by 2021 Wisconsin Act 205, effective March 20, 2022.”
S. A. M. v. Nancy M. Meister, 2016 WI 22 (Wis. 2016). “2014AP1283 ¶11 Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 767.17 , Nancy requested that the circuit court review the commissioner's order.”
Reese v. Sturm (E.D. Wis. 2024). “2005)); see also Wis. Stat. §767.17 (allowing appeals from any decision of a court commissioner to the judge of the branch of court to which the case has been assigned upon a party’s motion within twenty days of the decision).”
Kimberlee Lynn Borowski v. Steven Raymond Borowski (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “Section 767.17 requires that, upon the motion of a party, a circuit court reviews a decision by a court commissioner de novo.”
Alexander T. Hawkins v. Angela M. Wendling (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “2 It noted that the underlying reason for the hearing was Wendling’s November 2022 motion and that she had many months to retain an attorney who could represent her at the scheduled hearing.”
— Wis. Stat. § 767.17(1) — 1 case
Ann Marie Jahimiak v. David Ralph Jahimiak, 2024 WI App 5 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 767.17 was significantly changed by 2021 Wisconsin Act 205, effective March 20, 2022.”
— Wis. Stat. § 767.17(2) — 1 case
Ann Marie Jahimiak v. David Ralph Jahimiak, 2024 WI App 5 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 767.17 was significantly changed by 2021 Wisconsin Act 205, effective March 20, 2022.”
— Wis. Stat. § 767.17(3) — 2 cases
Ann Marie Jahimiak v. David Ralph Jahimiak, 2024 WI App 5 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 767.17 was significantly changed by 2021 Wisconsin Act 205, effective March 20, 2022.”
Alexander T. Hawkins v. Angela M. Wendling (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “2 It noted that the underlying reason for the hearing was Wendling’s November 2022 motion and that she had many months to retain an attorney who could represent her at the scheduled hearing.”
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.