Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2026)

Trial to the court

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

805.17805.17 Trial to the court.

805.17(1)(1) Motion at close of plaintiff’s evidence. After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of his or her evidence, the defendant, without waiving his or her right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court as trier of the facts may then determine them and render judgment against the plaintiff on that ground or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence. If the court renders judgment on the merits against the plaintiff, the court shall make findings as provided in sub. (2). Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this section operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

805.17(2)(2) Effect. In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the ultimate facts and state separately its conclusions of law thereon. The court shall either file its findings and conclusions prior to or concurrent with rendering judgment, state them orally on the record following the close of evidence or set them forth in an opinion or memorandum of decision filed by the court. In granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions the court shall similarly set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action. Requests for findings are not necessary for purposes of review. Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. The findings of a referee may be adopted in whole or part as the findings of the court. If an opinion or memorandum of decision is filed, it will be sufficient if the findings of ultimate fact and conclusions of law appear therein. If the court directs a party to submit proposed findings and conclusions, the party shall serve the proposed findings and conclusions on all other parties not later than the time of submission to the court. The findings and conclusions or memorandum of decision shall be made as soon as practicable and in no event more than 60 days after the cause has been submitted in final form.

805.17(3)(3) Reconsideration motions. Upon its own motion or the motion of a party made not later than 20 days after entry of judgment, the court may amend its findings or conclusions or make additional findings or conclusions and may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion may be made with a motion for a new trial. If the court amends the judgment, the time for initiating an appeal commences upon entry of the amended judgment. If the court denies a motion filed under this subsection, the time for initiating an appeal from the judgment commences when the court denies the motion on the record or when an order denying the motion is entered, whichever occurs first. If within 90 days after entry of judgment the court does not decide a motion filed under this subsection on the record or the judge, or the clerk at the judge’s written direction, does not sign an order denying the motion, the motion is considered denied and the time for initiating an appeal from the judgment commences 90 days after entry of judgment.

805.17(4)(4) Appeal. In actions tried by the court without a jury, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings may be raised on appeal whether or not the party raising the question has objected in the trial court to such findings or moved for new trial.

805.17 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 712 (1975); Sup. Ct. Order, 73 Wis. 2d xxxi (1976); Sup. Ct. Order, 107 Wis. 2d xi (1982); Sup. Ct. Order, 130 Wis. 2d xi (1986); Sup. Ct. Order, 160 Wis. 2d xiii (1991); 1993 a. 486.

805.17 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1976: Sub. (1) is based on the language in Federal Rule 41b, and governs how a court as the trier of the facts handles a motion by a defendant for dismissal after the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence. This adoption of the Federal Rule was the approach taken by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the case of Household Utilities, Inc. v. Andrews Co., 71 Wis. 2nd 17 (1976). [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1977]

805.17 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1982: Sub. (2) has been amended to allow the filing of the findings and conclusions concurrent with the rendering of the judgment. The changes are intended to eliminate doubts as to the propriety of combining the findings, conclusions and judgment in a single document, simplifying paperwork, minimizing storage space requirements and reducing the likelihood of errors. [Re Order effective July 1, 1982]

Effective date noteJudicial Council Note, 1986: Sub. (2) is amended to permit the court to state the findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record in open court, in lieu of filing them. The amendment conforms to the practice authorized under Rule 52 (a), F.R.C.P. [Re Order eff. 7-1-86]

Effective date noteJudicial Council Note, 1991: This section permits motions for reconsideration to be made within 20 days after entry of judgment in actions tried to the court. Such motions are deemed denied if not decided within 90 days after entry of judgment. [Re Order eff. 7-1-91]

805.17 AnnotationSub. (3) does not limit a trial court’s discretionary power to grant relief from an order or judgment under s. 806.07 (1) (h) when reasons justifying relief are apparent to the court. Grodin v. Smith, 82 Wis. 2d 667, 264 N.W.2d 239 (1978).

805.17 AnnotationFailure to bring a motion under sub. (3) to correct a manifest error constitutes a waiver of the right to have an issue considered on appeal. Schinner v. Schinner, 143 Wis. 2d 81, 420 N.W.2d 381 (Ct. App. 1988).

805.17 AnnotationIf a motion is filed under sub. (3), the 45-day time for appeal under s. 808.04 (1) applies beginning upon disposal of the motion. Salzman v. DNR, 168 Wis. 2d 523, 484 N.W.2d 337 (Ct. App. 1992).

805.17 AnnotationIn a trial to the court, the court may not base its decision on affidavits submitted in support of a summary judgment. Proof offered in support of summary judgment is for determining if an issue of fact exists. When one does, summary judgment proof gives way to trial proof. Berna-Mork v. Jones, 173 Wis. 2d 733, 496 N.W.2d 637 (Ct. App. 1992).

805.17 AnnotationSub. (3) modifies the deadline for filing appeals only on reconsideration motions after trials to the court. Continental Casualty Co. v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, 175 Wis. 2d 527, 499 N.W.2d 282 (Ct. App. 1993).

805.17 AnnotationReconsideration assumes a question that has been previously considered. If a party has not appeared and made arguments, the court has not considered the party’s arguments in the first instance and reconsideration is improper. O’Neill v. Buchanan, 186 Wis. 2d 229, 519 N.W.2d 750 (Ct. App. 1994).

805.17 AnnotationAlthough a formal order was subsequently signed, the trial court’s letter to the parties informing them that a motion for reconsideration was denied was a denial “on the record” under sub. (3), and the time for filing an appeal commenced on the date of the letter. Orth v. Ameritrade, Inc., 187 Wis. 2d 162, 522 N.W.2d 30 (Ct. App. 1994).

805.17 AnnotationA court’s final written findings of fact and conclusions of law take precedence over an earlier written memorandum or an oral finding not repeated in the final order. When there is a conflict between an ambiguous oral pronouncement and the written judgment, it is proper to look to the written judgment to ascertain the court’s intent. Jackson v. Gray, 212 Wis. 2d 436, 569 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1997), 95-3168.

805.17 AnnotationThere is no condition precedent under sub. (3) for reconsideration on the court’s own motion except that the court must act within 20 days of its original decision. Therefore there is no requirement that the reason for reconsideration must have been a subject of the original hearing. Village of Thiensville v. Olsen, 223 Wis. 2d 256, 588 N.W.2d 394 (Ct. App. 1998), 98-2055.

805.17 AnnotationSub. (3) does not apply to reconsiderations of summary or default judgments. Teff v. Unity Health Plans Insurance Corp., 2003 WI App 115, 265 Wis. 2d 703, 666 N.W.2d 38, 02-1319.

805.17 AnnotationA tenant in an eviction may move for reconsideration of the eviction judgment under sub. (3) but must take an appeal from the judgment within the time for appeal in s. 799.445. The time for filing an appeal under sub. (3) does not apply. Highland Manor Associates v. Bast, 2003 WI 152, 268 Wis. 2d 1, 672 N.W.2d 709, 02-2799.

805.17 AnnotationTo prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must present either newly discovered evidence or establish a manifest error of law or fact. A party may not use a motion for reconsideration to introduce new evidence that could have been introduced at the original summary judgment phase. Koepsell’s Olde Popcorn Wagons, Inc. v. Koepsell’s Festival Popcorn Wagons, Ltd., 2004 WI App 129, 275 Wis. 2d 397, 685 N.W.2d 853, 03-0773.

805.17 AnnotationWhen evidence in the record consists of disputed testimony and a video recording, the court of appeals will apply the clearly erroneous standard of review when reviewing the trial court’s findings of fact based on that recording. State v. Walli, 2011 WI App 86, 334 Wis. 2d 402, 799 N.W.2d 898, 10-1256.

805.17 AnnotationSub. (3) provides that the time for initiating an appeal of the judgment commences when one of the following events occurs: 1) the court decides the reconsideration motion, either by entering an amended judgment or by denying the reconsideration motion, whether on the record or by entering an order; or 2) 90 days after the entry of judgment if the court has not decided the motion by that date. Accordingly, by its unambiguous terms, sub. (3) can delay the commencement of the appeal timeline under s. 808.04 (1) for no longer than 90 days. Kraemer v. Traun, 2025 WI App 8, 415 Wis. 2d 125, 17 N.W.3d 49, 24-0088.

805.17 AnnotationSub. (3) does not impose a 90-day deadline on the circuit court to decide a motion for reconsideration after which the court loses competency to act. Kraemer v. Traun, 2025 WI App 8, 415 Wis. 2d 125, 17 N.W.3d 49, 24-0088.

805.17 AnnotationWhat You Need to Know: New Electronic Discovery Rules. Sankovitz, Grenig, & Gleisner. Wis. Law. July 2010.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,000 cases (249 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Highland Manor Assocs. v. Bast, 2003 WI 152 (Wis. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Highland Manor Assocs. v. Bast, 2003 WI 152 (Wis. 2003). · cites it 31× “The first issue is whether a tenant defendant in a small claims eviction proceeding may move for reconsideration of a judgment of eviction against the tenant using Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (3). Assuming that the tenant may move for reconsideration, the second issue is whether a…”

State v. Jimmie Lee Smith, 2016 WI 23 (Wis. 2016). · cites it 14× “¶95 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) is nearly identical to Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2), which provides in relevant part: "Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the…”

Royster-Clark, Inc. v. Olsen's Mill, Inc., 2006 WI 46 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 14× “1988)(citing Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2)). ¶ 12. A circuit court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the finding is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.”

Gittel v. Abram, 2002 WI App 113 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 25× “Gittel filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the twenty-day time period within which the court could reconsider its decision under Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (3) 6 had expired. The court denied the motion.”

Outagamie Cnty. v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67 (Wis. 2013). · cites it 10× “25 (discussing that the circuit court's misstatement of the burden of proof was analogous to an erroneous jury instruction).”

Teff v. Unity Health Plans Ins. Corp., 2003 WI App 115 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 13× “5 We conclude the evidence supported the trial court's determination that Unity's calculation was not a reliable basis for determining the amount of revenues Teff and Soderholm-Wilder would have had in 1997 if the contract had not been terminated. Defamation Damages ¶ 38.”

Marriage of Schinner v. Schinner, 420 N.W.2d 381 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 13× “Failure to bring a motion to correct such manifest errors properly constitutes a waiver of the right to have such an issue considered on appeal.”

State v. Carter, 2010 WI 77 (Wis. 2010). · cites it 8× “Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2). The circuit court's findings of fact in the present case are not clearly erroneous; they are supported by the 15 exhibits in the record.”

State v. Garfoot, 558 N.W.2d 626 (Wis. 1997). · cites it 12× “See Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2). [4] ¶22. The "clearly erroneous" standard is most suited to review of a competency determination.”

Salzman v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 484 N.W.2d 337 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 17× “We conclude that pursuant to sec. 805.17(3), Stats., 3 Salzman's motion for reconsideration operated to *527 change the time limits governing Salzman's appeal.”

In Interest of Christopher D., 530 N.W.2d 34 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 8× “Section 805.17(2), STATS. The trial court conducted a number of experiments prior to trial to determine whether the telephone system allowed Franklin to hear persons on the witness stand, in the jury box, and at counsel table.”

State v. Knapp, 2003 WI 121 (Wis. 2003). · cites it 8× “2d 245 (1996), and Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (2) (2001-2002). [7] However, whether those facts satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonableness is a question of law which this court reviews de novo.”

Show all 1,000 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 805.17(1) — 6 cases

In Matter of Est. of Koenigsmark, 351 N.W.2d 169 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984).

City of Pewaukee v. Carter, 2004 WI 136 (Wis. 2004).

Meas v. Young, 405 N.W.2d 697 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).

Pillar Corp. v. Enercon Indus. Corp., 694 F. Supp. 1353 (E.D. Wis. 1988).

Jalal Kareem Khoury v. Am. Honda Motor Co. Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wis. Stat. § 805.17(2) — 750 cases

In Interest of Christopher D., 530 N.W.2d 34 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “Section 805.17(2), STATS. The trial court conducted a number of experiments prior to trial to determine whether the telephone system allowed Franklin to hear persons on the witness stand, in the jury box, and at counsel table.”

State v. Wilson, 508 N.W.2d 44 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993).

Matter of Guardianship of Jenae Ks, 539 N.W.2d 104 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).

State v. Anderson, 454 N.W.2d 763 (Wis. 1990).

Richards v. Land Star Grp., Inc., 593 N.W.2d 103 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).

— Wis. Stat. § 805.17(3) — 45 cases

Salzman v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 484 N.W.2d 337 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “We conclude that pursuant to sec. 805.17(3), Stats., 3 Salzman's motion for reconsideration operated to *527 change the time limits governing Salzman's appeal.”

Highland Manor Assocs. v. Bast, 2003 WI 152 (Wis. 2003). “The first issue is whether a tenant defendant in a small claims eviction proceeding may move for reconsideration of a judgment of eviction against the tenant using Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (3). Assuming that the tenant may move for reconsideration, the second issue is whether a…”

Marriage of Schinner v. Schinner, 420 N.W.2d 381 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “Failure to bring a motion to correct such manifest errors properly constitutes a waiver of the right to have such an issue considered on appeal.”

Gittel v. Abram, 2002 WI App 113 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “Gittel filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the twenty-day time period within which the court could reconsider its decision under Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (3) 6 had expired. The court denied the motion.”

Teff v. Unity Health Plans Ins. Corp., 2003 WI App 115 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “5 We conclude the evidence supported the trial court's determination that Unity's calculation was not a reliable basis for determining the amount of revenues Teff and Soderholm-Wilder would have had in 1997 if the contract had not been terminated. Defamation Damages ¶ 38.”

— Wis. Stat. § 805.17(4) — 16 cases

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2000 WI App 272 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).

Suburban Motors of Grafton, Inc. v. Forester, 396 N.W.2d 351 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986).

J. K. v. Peters, 2011 WI App 149 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011).

Scholten Pattern Works, Inc. v. Roadway Express, Inc., 448 N.W.2d 670 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).

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.