Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 800.115 (2026)
Relief from judgment
✓ laws through the 2025-26 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
800.115(1)(1) A defendant may within 6 months after the judgment is entered move for relief from the judgment because of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
800.115(2)(2) Any party, including the court on its own motion, may at any time move to reopen the judgment under s. 806.07 (1) (c), (d), (g), or (h).
800.115(3)(3) Nothing in this section shall prevent the parties from stipulating and the court approving the reopening of a judgment for any other reason justifying relief from operation of the judgment.
800.115(4)(4) The court may impose costs on the motion as allowed under s. 814.07, except that any costs shall be based on the expense associated with the motion and the court shall consider the defendant’s ability to pay the costs using the factors in s. 814.29 (1) (d) 1. to 3. No costs may be imposed as a requirement of filing the motion.
800.115(5)(5) Upon making a motion under this section, the court shall provide notice to all parties and schedule a hearing on the motion. Upon receiving a motion under this section, the court may enter an order denying the motion for failure to state grounds upon which relief may be granted, schedule a hearing on the motion, or enter an order based on written submissions from the parties.
800.115 AnnotationOnly a defendant may seek relief under this section. However, a municipal court has the inherent authority to vacate a void judgment irrespective of this section’s requirements for reopening a judgment. City of Kenosha v. Jensen, 184 Wis. 2d 91, 516 N.W.2d 4 (Ct. App. 1994).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2023 · leading case: Vill. of Elm Grove v. Richard K. Brefka, 2013 WI 54, 832 N.W.2d 121.
Vill. of Elm Grove v. Richard K. Brefka, 2013 WI 54, 832 N.W.2d 121. “Procedures that arguably allow for an extension on the ground of excusable neglect are, however, found in three other procedural statutes, Wis. Stat. §§ 800.115 , 13 80l.l5(2)(a), 14 and 806.”
City of Kenosha v. Jensen, 516 N.W.2d 4 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Except as provided under sub. (2), the motion must be made no later than 6 months after the judgment was entered or the order or stipulation was made.”
Vill. of Hales Corners v. Aman D. Singh, No. 2022AP001325, 2022AP001327 (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2023). “Upon discussing the fact that these two citations were companion to a criminal OWI being prosecuted in the Circuit Court, the Municipal Prosecutor set the matter for an adjourned initial appearance of June 7, 2017.”
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.