Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 767.78 (2026)
Enforcement; contempt proceedings
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
767.78(1)(1) Definition. In this section, “financial obligation” means an obligation for payment incurred under s. 767.531, 2019 stats., or s. 48.355 (2) (b) 4. or (4g) (a), 48.357 (5m) (a), 48.363 (2), 767.225, 767.241, 767.511, 767.56, 767.61, 767.71, 767.804 (3), 767.805 (4), 767.85, 767.863 (3), 767.89, 938.183 (4), 938.355 (2) (b) 4. or (4g) (a), 938.357 (5m) (a), or 938.363 (2).
767.78(2)(2) Noncompliance; order to show cause. If a person has incurred a financial obligation and has failed within a reasonable time or as ordered by the court to satisfy the obligation, and the wage assignment proceeding under s. 767.75 and the account transfer under s. 767.76 are inapplicable, impractical, or unfeasible, the court may on its own initiative, and shall on the application of the receiving party, issue an order requiring the payer to show cause at a reasonable time specified in the order why he or she should not be subject to contempt of court under ch. 785.
767.78 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 105; 1979 c. 32 ss. 50, 92 (4); 1979 c. 196; 1979 c. 257 s. 17; Stats. 1979 s. 767.305; 1993 a. 481; 1995 a. 77; 1997 a. 27, 191; 1999 a. 103; 2005 a. 443 ss. 142, 143; Stats. 2005 s. 767.78; 2015 a. 373; 2019 a. 95; 2021 a. 35.
767.78 AnnotationContempt is an appropriate means to enforce child support arrearages after a child has reached majority. Griffin v. Reeve, 141 Wis. 2d 699, 416 N.W.2d 612 (1987).
767.78 AnnotationWhen a contemnor’s liberty interests are at risk, the contemnor must be given an opportunity to show the court that the failure to comply with the purge conditions was not willful and intentional. State ex rel. V.J.H. v. C.A.B., 163 Wis. 2d 833, 472 N.W.2d 839 (Ct. App. 1991).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2020–2023 · leading case: State v. Richard L. Austin, Jr. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Richard L. Austin, Jr. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 767.78(2) provides that the State may bring enforcement actions, including contempt, against a person who has not complied with their financial obligations.”
Michael S. Eisenga v. Clare A. Hawthorne (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “However, whatever the court meant to convey in discussing the burden of proof, the ultimate question on this issue is the following: what portion of Hawthorne’s litigation costs are attributable to the contempt issue based on the record before the court? Eisenga fails to explain…”
— Wis. Stat. § 767.78(2) — 2 cases
State v. Richard L. Austin, Jr. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 767.78(2) provides that the State may bring enforcement actions, including contempt, against a person who has not complied with their financial obligations.”
Michael S. Eisenga v. Clare A. Hawthorne (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “However, whatever the court meant to convey in discussing the burden of proof, the ultimate question on this issue is the following: what portion of Hawthorne’s litigation costs are attributable to the contempt issue based on the record before the court? Eisenga fails to explain…”
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.