Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 801 — CIVIL PROCEDURE — COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION AND VENUE
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 801.10 (2026)

Summons, by whom served

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
801.10801.10 Summons, by whom served.
801.10(1)(1) Who may serve. An authenticated copy of the summons may be served by any adult resident of the state where service is made who is not a party to the action. Service shall be made with reasonable diligence.
801.10(1m)(1m) Service by certain nonresidents. Notwithstanding sub. (1), an adult who is not a party to the action and who resides in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, or Minnesota may serve an authenticated copy of the summons in this state.
801.10(2)(2) Endorsement. At the time of service, the person who serves a copy of the summons shall sign the summons and shall indicate thereon the time and date, place and manner of service and upon whom service was made. If the server is a sheriff or deputy sheriff, the server’s official title shall be stated. Failure to make the endorsement shall not invalidate a service but the server shall not collect fees for the service.
801.10(3)(3) Proof of service. The person making service shall make and deliver proof of service to the person on whose behalf service was made who shall promptly file such proof of service. Failure to make, deliver, or file proof of service shall not affect the validity of the service.
801.10(4)(4) Proof if service challenged. If the defendant appears in the action and challenges the service of summons upon the defendant, proof of service shall be as follows:
801.10(4)(a)(a) Personal or substituted personal service shall be proved by the affidavit of the server indicating the time and date, place and manner of service; that the server is an adult resident of the state of service or, if service is made in this state, an adult resident of this state or of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, or Minnesota and is not a party to the action; that the server knew the person served to be the defendant named in the summons; and that the server delivered to and left with the defendant an authenticated copy of the summons. If the defendant is not personally served, the server shall state in the affidavit when, where and with whom the copy was left, and shall state such facts as show reasonable diligence in attempting to effect personal service on the defendant. If the copy of the summons is served by a sheriff or deputy sheriff of the county in this state where the defendant was found, proof may be by the sheriff’s or deputy’s certificate of service indicating time and date, place, manner of service and, if the defendant is not personally served, the information required in the preceding sentence. The affidavit or certificate constituting proof of service under this paragraph may be made on an authenticated copy of the summons or as a separate document.
801.10(4)(b)(b) Service by publication shall be proved by the affidavit of the publisher or printer, or the foreman or principal clerk, stating that the summons was published and specifying the date of each insertion, and by an affidavit of mailing of an authenticated copy of the summons, with the complaint or notice of the object of the action, as the case may require, made by the person who mailed the same.
801.10(4)(c)(c) The written admission of the defendant, whose signature or the subscription of whose name to such admission shall be presumptive evidence of genuineness.
801.10 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 600 (1975); 1975 c. 218; Sup. Ct. Order, 92 Wis. 2d xiii (1979); 2005 a. 439.
801.10 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: Sub. (2) is amended to clarify that the individual who serves the summons on behalf of the plaintiff under the procedures in the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure must indicate on the copy of the summons served both the time and date of service. There is presently a lack of uniformity of interpretation in Wisconsin of the term “time” in s. 801.10 (2). Some jurisdictions interpret it to include time and date of service while other jurisdictions interpret it as only the date of service. Clarifying that both the time and date of service must be indicated in the serving of the summons will insure that this potentially valuable information is noted on the served copy of every summons in Wisconsin.
801.10 NoteSub. (4) (a) is amended to also apply the requirement for indicating time and date of service to the affidavits and certificates of service used when proof of service is challenged. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1980]
801.10 AnnotationA party is required to show strict compliance with the requirements of this section when service is challenged. Dietrich v. Elliott, 190 Wis. 2d 816, 528 N.W.2d 17 (Ct. App. 1995).
801.10 AnnotationService by a nonresident constitutes a fundamental defect compelling dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Bendimez v. Neidermire, 222 Wis. 2d 356, 588 N.W.2d 55 (Ct. App. 1998), 98-0656.
801.10 AnnotationSub. (4) does not require the affiant to have first hand knowledge of how the documents were authenticated, nor does it require that the affiant’s statements must be unqualified; it requires that the affiant affirm that an authenticated copy of the summons was served. State v. Boyd, 2000 WI App 208, 238 Wis. 2d 693, 618 N.W.2d 251, 99-2633.
801.10 AnnotationThe trial court was not required to find excusable neglect for failing to file a timely answer due to a process server’s failure to endorse and date the summons and complaint as required under sub. (2) when the failure to answer in a timely manner amounted to nothing more than carelessness and inattentiveness on the part of the parties involved. Williams Corner Investors, LLC v. Areawide Cellular, LLC, 2004 WI App 27, 269 Wis. 2d 682, 676 N.W.2d 168, 03-0824.
801.10 AnnotationAn affidavit of service is entitled to a presumption of correctness. If the affidavit sets forth prima facie evidence of proper service, the defendant must provide proof that clearly and satisfactorily disputes the facts set forth. The court has discretion regarding the nature of proof considered, including witnesses, which may be preferable when the issue of service is largely a matter of credibility because the evidence is irreconcilably in conflict. Culver v. Kaza, 2021 WI App 57, 399 Wis. 2d 131, 963 N.W.2d 865, 20-0309.
801.10 AnnotationUnder sub. (4) (a), a process server who is unable to effect personal service is directed to state such facts as show reasonable diligence in attempting to effect personal service on the defendant. The statute imposes a duty by law that undoubtedly will include hearsay at times. A process server’s affidavit is clothed with circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness comparable to the recognized hearsay exceptions. Culver v. Kaza, 2021 WI App 57, 399 Wis. 2d 131, 963 N.W.2d 865, 20-0309.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: Waukesha Cnty. v. M.A.C., 2024 WI 30 (Wis. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Waukesha Cnty. v. M.A.C., 2024 WI 30 (Wis. 2024). · cites it 8× “"); Wis. Stat. § 801.10 (1) ("An authenticated copy of the summons may be served by any adult resident of the state where service is made who is not a party to the action.”
Bendimez v. Neidermire, 588 N.W.2d 55 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 14× “1995), followed the rule in American Family and concluded that deficiencies in service under § 801.10, Stats., constitute fundamental defects.”
Dietrich v. Elliott, 528 N.W.2d 17 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 8× “See § 801.10(3), Stats. However, where service is challenged, § 801.”
State v. One 1997 Ford F-150, Maroon in Color, VIN: 1FTDX1860VNA24501, Wisconsin License : B121933, 2003 WI App 128 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 11× “Beck first submits that the affidavit of service failed to comply with the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 801.10 (4)(a) (2001-02), 2 asserting that the affiant, the process server, did not properly affirm his having provided Beck with an authenticated copy of the summons and, as a…”
State v. Boyd, 2000 WI App 208 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “§ 801.10(4) because it does not make an "unqualified statement that service of an authenticated copy of the summons was accomplished.”
Schaefer v. Riegelman, 2002 WI 18 (Wis. 2002). · cites it 2× “1998) (holding that a defect is fundamental when the defendant is served by a nonresident of Wisconsin, because the purpose behind § 801.10 has not been met); Dungan v. County of Pierce, 170 Wis.”
Williams Corner Investors, LLC v. Areawide Cellular, LLC, 2004 WI App 27 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “See Wis. Stat. § 801.10 (2) (2001-02). 2 However, the process server's affidavit of service stated that on October 15, 2002, he served the summons, complaint and request for production of documents upon Alpha "by handing copies to Male/White, 5T0", 230 Lbs.”
Beth Culver v. Adilakshmi Kaza, 2021 WI App 57 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “§ 801.10(4)(a) provides in relevant part: (4) Proof if service challenged.”
Honeycrest Farms, Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp., 486 N.W.2d 539 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “Before the trial court may enter a default judgment, it must require proof of service of the summons in the manner required by sec. 801.10, Stats. Section 806.02(2), Stats.”
Landreman v. Martin, 530 N.W.2d 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Section 801.10(4)(a), STATS. If the ordinance were aimed at preventing service of process, exclusion of law enforcement officials would not accomplish that purpose.”
Rafeal D. Newson v. Jeffrey Wagner (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “§ 801.10(4). See One 1997 Ford F-150, 265 Wis.”
Birch Hill Real Est. LLC v. Breslin (E.D. Wis. 2019). “Plaintiffs argue that their actions meet the standard of proof for service by publication set forth in Wisconsin Statute § 801.10(4)(b), and therefore MidCap’s failure to obtain Khawly’s consent requires remand.”
— Wis. Stat. § 801.10(1) — 1 case
Bendimez v. Neidermire, 588 N.W.2d 55 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “1995), followed the rule in American Family and concluded that deficiencies in service under § 801.10, Stats., constitute fundamental defects.”
— Wis. Stat. § 801.10(2) — 1 case
Williams Corner Investors, LLC v. Areawide Cellular, LLC, 2004 WI App 27 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “See Wis. Stat. § 801.10 (2) (2001-02). 2 However, the process server's affidavit of service stated that on October 15, 2002, he served the summons, complaint and request for production of documents upon Alpha "by handing copies to Male/White, 5T0", 230 Lbs.”
— Wis. Stat. § 801.10(3) — 1 case
Dietrich v. Elliott, 528 N.W.2d 17 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “See § 801.10(3), Stats. However, where service is challenged, § 801.”
— Wis. Stat. § 801.10(4) — 3 cases
State v. Boyd, 2000 WI App 208 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “§ 801.10(4) because it does not make an "unqualified statement that service of an authenticated copy of the summons was accomplished.”
Honeycrest Farms, Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp., 486 N.W.2d 539 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “Before the trial court may enter a default judgment, it must require proof of service of the summons in the manner required by sec. 801.10, Stats. Section 806.02(2), Stats.”
Rafeal D. Newson v. Jeffrey Wagner (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 801.10(4). See One 1997 Ford F-150, 265 Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 801.10(4)(a) — 6 cases
Dietrich v. Elliott, 528 N.W.2d 17 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “See § 801.10(3), Stats. However, where service is challenged, § 801.”
Beth Culver v. Adilakshmi Kaza, 2021 WI App 57 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 801.10(4)(a) provides in relevant part: (4) Proof if service challenged.”
State v. Boyd, 2000 WI App 208 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “§ 801.10(4) because it does not make an "unqualified statement that service of an authenticated copy of the summons was accomplished.”
State v. One 1997 Ford F-150, Maroon in Color, VIN: 1FTDX1860VNA24501, Wisconsin License : B121933, 2003 WI App 128 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “Beck first submits that the affidavit of service failed to comply with the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 801.10 (4)(a) (2001-02), 2 asserting that the affiant, the process server, did not properly affirm his having provided Beck with an authenticated copy of the summons and, as a…”
Landreman v. Martin, 530 N.W.2d 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “Section 801.10(4)(a), STATS. If the ordinance were aimed at preventing service of process, exclusion of law enforcement officials would not accomplish that purpose.”
— Wis. Stat. § 801.10(4)(b) — 1 case
Birch Hill Real Est. LLC v. Breslin (E.D. Wis. 2019). “Plaintiffs argue that their actions meet the standard of proof for service by publication set forth in Wisconsin Statute § 801.10(4)(b), and therefore MidCap’s failure to obtain Khawly’s consent requires remand.”
— Wis. Stat. § 801.10(4)(c) — 1 case
Waukesha Cnty. v. M.A.C., 2024 WI 30 (Wis. 2024). “"); Wis. Stat. § 801.10 (1) ("An authenticated copy of the summons may be served by any adult resident of the state where service is made who is not a party to the action.”
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.