Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 799.22 (2026)
Judgment on failure to appear or answer
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
799.22(1)(1) When plaintiff fails to appear. If the plaintiff fails to appear on the return date or on the date set for trial, the court may enter a judgment for the defendant dismissing the action, on motion of the defendant or on its own motion.
799.22(2)(2) When defendant fails to appear. If the defendant fails to appear on the return date or on the date set for trial, the court may enter a judgment upon due proof of facts which show the plaintiff entitled thereto.
799.22(3)(3) Plaintiff’s proof where action arose on contract for recovery of money. In any action arising on contract for the recovery of money only, if the defendant fails to appear and answer or to appear at the time set for trial, the plaintiff may file with the judge or clerk a verified complaint, or an affidavit of the facts, or may offer sworn testimony or other evidence to the clerk or judge, and either may enter judgment thereon.
799.22(4)(a)(a) Any circuit court may by rule permit a defendant to join issue in any of the actions specified in s. 799.01 without appearing on the return date by answering, either by mail or by telephone, within such time and in such manner as the rule permits.
799.22(4)(am)(am) If the defendant is a nonresident of this state, the circuit court shall adopt a rule to permit the defendant to join issue in any of the actions specified in s. 799.01 without appearing on the return date by answering by mail, in such manner as the rule permits, and if the court adopts a rule under par. (a) to permit the defendant to join issue without appearing on the return date by answering by telephone, then the defendant shall also be permitted to join issue by answering by telephone, in such manner as the rule permits.
799.22(4)(b)1.1. The existence of the rule shall be deemed an appearance by the plaintiff in that court on the return date for purposes of sub. (1).
799.22(4)(b)2.2. A proper answer by the defendant under the rule shall be deemed an appearance by the defendant in that court on the return date for purposes of sub. (2).
799.22(4)(b)3.3. Any summons under s. 799.05 (6) or (7) or 799.12 (6) (c) and any notice under s. 799.16 (4) shall notify the defendant of the option to answer without appearing in court on the return date and the methods of answering permitted by the rule.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Waukesha Cnty. v. S.L.L. (In Re Mental Commitment of S.L.L.), 929 N.W.2d 140 (Wis. 2019).
Waukesha Cnty. v. S.L.L. (In Re Mental Commitment of S.L.L.), 929 N.W.2d 140 (Wis. 2019). “" Wis. Stat. § 799.22 (2) (1981-82) (emphasis in original).”
Cnty. of Walworth v. Spalding, 329 N.W.2d 925 (Wis. 1983). “This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals which affirmed the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to reopen a default judgment entered against him pursuant to sec. 799.22(2), Stats. 1979-80, because he failed to appear at a scheduled trial.”
Mandujano v. Mendoza, 918 N.W.2d 644 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “Under Wis. Stat. § 799.22 (1), the sanction of dismissal is within the circuit court's discretion where the plaintiff fails to appear on the date set for trial.”
Frank T. Whitehead v. Indianhead Food Distrib. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 799.22, that a court may enter a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the defendant fails to answer.”
Martindale Pinnacle Constr. v. John Pulley (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 799.22(1). ¶4 On June 25, 2019, MPC, through counsel, filed a motion for relief from the dismissal order.”
Milwaukee Bd. of Sch. Directors v. Gevonchai L. Hudnall (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 799.22(1). As such, the Board further argues that Hudnall’s recourse was to file a motion to reopen the default judgment, and because Hudnall failed to do so, this court lacks the ability to decide Hudnall’s appeal.”
Michael Chambers v. Hous. Auth. of The City of Milwaukee (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 799.22(2) (“If the defendant fails to appear on the return date or on the date set for trial, the court may enter a judgment upon due proof of facts which show the plaintiff entitled thereto.”
Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC v. Joel Villareal (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “” The circuit court denied Villareal’s request. Villareal appeals.”
Joseph Salas v. Shelly Nelson (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “The applicable small claims statute provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to appear on the return date or on the date set for trial, the court may enter a judgment for the defendant dismissing the action, on motion of the defendant or on its own motion.”
— Wis. Stat. § 799.22(1) — 4 cases
Mandujano v. Mendoza, 918 N.W.2d 644 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “Under Wis. Stat. § 799.22 (1), the sanction of dismissal is within the circuit court's discretion where the plaintiff fails to appear on the date set for trial.”
Martindale Pinnacle Constr. v. John Pulley (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 799.22(1). ¶4 On June 25, 2019, MPC, through counsel, filed a motion for relief from the dismissal order.”
Milwaukee Bd. of Sch. Directors v. Gevonchai L. Hudnall (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 799.22(1). As such, the Board further argues that Hudnall’s recourse was to file a motion to reopen the default judgment, and because Hudnall failed to do so, this court lacks the ability to decide Hudnall’s appeal.”
Joseph Salas v. Shelly Nelson (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “The applicable small claims statute provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to appear on the return date or on the date set for trial, the court may enter a judgment for the defendant dismissing the action, on motion of the defendant or on its own motion.”
— Wis. Stat. § 799.22(2) — 4 cases
Cnty. of Walworth v. Spalding, 329 N.W.2d 925 (Wis. 1983). “This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals which affirmed the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to reopen a default judgment entered against him pursuant to sec. 799.22(2), Stats. 1979-80, because he failed to appear at a scheduled trial.”
Frank T. Whitehead v. Indianhead Food Distrib. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 799.22, that a court may enter a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the defendant fails to answer.”
Michael Chambers v. Hous. Auth. of The City of Milwaukee (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 799.22(2) (“If the defendant fails to appear on the return date or on the date set for trial, the court may enter a judgment upon due proof of facts which show the plaintiff entitled thereto.”
Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC v. Joel Villareal (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “” The circuit court denied Villareal’s request. Villareal appeals.”
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.