Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 807.05 (2026)
Stipulations
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
807.05807.05 Stipulations. No agreement, stipulation, or consent between the parties or their attorneys, in respect to the proceedings in an action or special proceeding shall be binding unless made in court or during a proceeding conducted under s. 807.13 or 967.08 and entered in the minutes or recorded by the reporter, or made in writing and subscribed by the party to be bound thereby or the party’s attorney.
807.05 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 744 (1975); 1975 c. 218; Sup. Ct. Order, 141 Wis. 2d xiii (1987).
807.05 NoteComment, 2008: This section also applies to agreements, stipulations, and consents reached as a result of alternative dispute methods outlined in s. 802.12. In some cases, such as family law cases, court approval is required for an agreement to be effective.
807.05 NoteNote: Sup. Ct. Order No. 05-05 states, “the comments to Wis. Stat. §§ 807.05 and 802.12 are not adopted but will be published and may be consulted for guidance in interpreting and applying the statutes.”
807.05 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1988: The statute is amended to reflect that stipulations entered into at telephone conferences are no less binding than those made in writing or in court. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1988]
807.05 AnnotationWhen a stipulation did not satisfy this section, summary judgment was improper because there was no factual basis on the record for the decision. Wilharms v. Wilharms, 93 Wis. 2d 671, 287 N.W.2d 779 (1980).
807.05 AnnotationAn oral agreement to settle an action that does not comply with this section is unenforceable. Adelmeyer v. Wisconsin Electric Power Co., 135 Wis. 2d 367, 400 N.W.2d 473 (Ct. App. 1986).
807.05 AnnotationThis section does not affect procedural stipulations or judicial admissions that dispense with evidentiary requirements. State v. Aldazabal, 146 Wis. 2d 267, 430 N.W.2d 614 (Ct. App. 1988).
807.05 AnnotationThe subscription requirement is met by a stamped facsimile signature. This section does not require hand-written signatures. Kocinski v. Home Insurance Co., 154 Wis. 2d 56, 452 N.W.2d 360 (1990).
807.05 AnnotationContract law is not binding in construing, enforcing, or modifying stipulations, but principles of contract law, including the Uniform Commercial Code, may illuminate a stipulation dispute, even to the point of being dispositive. Phone Partners Ltd. Partnership v. C.F. Communications Corp., 196 Wis. 2d 702, 542 N.W.2d 159 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-2279.
807.05 AnnotationTo constitute a stipulation under this section, a statement must be conclusive on the question. The concession of a fact to the court made for strategic reasons and not agreed to by the other party is not a stipulation, and the court need not engage in a colloquy with the parties about it. Fritz v. Fritz, 231 Wis. 2d 33, 605 N.W.2d 270 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-0605.
807.05 AnnotationThis section does not provide for a party to subscribe to an agreement through general conduct. A party’s assent or approval must be formalized in some way on the document itself. Laska v. Laska, 2002 WI App 132, 255 Wis. 2d 823, 646 N.W.2d 393, 02-0022.
807.05 AnnotationA fax transmittal letter sent by counsel that bore counsel’s initials at the conclusion of the message text was subscribed within the meaning of this section thereby rendering the settlement terms accepted in that letter binding on the client and enforceable by the court. Waite v. Easton-White Creek Lions, Inc., 2006 WI App 19, 289 Wis. 2d 100, 709 N.W.2d 88, 05-1688.
807.05 AnnotationWhen an attorney signed a settlement agreement contingent on the client’s consent by noon the following day and the client did not consent to the settlement by the deadline created by the contingency, the settlement was not enforceable under this section. Subsequent actions by the parties cannot fulfill the statutory requirements. Neither the untimely oral assurances by the attorney to the other parties, nor the attorney’s call notifying the court that a settlement had been reached, satisfied the contingency set forth in the agreement. Affordable Erecting, Inc. v. Neosho Trompler, Inc., 2006 WI 67, 291 Wis. 2d 259, 715 N.W.2d 620, 04-2746.
807.05 AnnotationOral settlements are not invariably unenforceable. Gliniecki v. Borden, Inc., 444 F. Supp. 619 (1978).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65
cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Affordable Erecting, Inc. v. Neosho Trompler, Inc., 2006 WI 67 (Wis. 2006).
Affordable Erecting, Inc. v. Neosho Trompler, Inc., 2006 WI 67 (Wis. 2006). “The circuit court determined that the mediation agreement met the statutory requirements for a valid settlement under Wis. Stat. § 807.05 (2003-04) 1 because Affordable's attorney signed the document.”
Kocinski v. Home Ins. Co., 452 N.W.2d 360 (Wis. 1990). “1985-1986, [2] is formally sufficient when the name of the party to be bound or the party's attorney appears as a stamped facsimile signature at the foot of one of the documents comprising the stipulation rather than being a personally handwritten signature.”
Admiral Ins. v. Paper Converting Mach. Co., 2012 WI 30 (Wis. 2012). “Regarding the merits, Admiral acknowledges that it entered into an agreement with its insured, PCMC, to contribute $2 million towards the settlement of a lawsuit, but it contends that the oral funding agreement is unenforceable because it does not meet the requirements of Wis.…”
Affordable Erecting, Inc. v. Neosho Trompler, Inc., 2005 WI App 189 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “First, the court determined that the mediated agreement complied with Wis. Stat. § 807.05 . We will not disturb a circuit court's underlying findings of fact unless clearly erroneous; however, whether the facts fulfill a statutory requirement is a question of law that we review…”
GMAC Mortg. Corp. v. Gisvold, 572 N.W.2d 466 (Wis. 1998). “The original stipulation was entered into at the December 27,1995, hearing and constituted a binding in-court stipulation pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 807.05 . 6 The amended stipulation, which was signed by the parties and approved by the court on January 12,1996, was also binding…”
Laska v. Laska, 2002 WI App 132 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “1 She argues that the trial court misinterpreted Wis. Stat. § 807.05 when it enforced the agreement absent her signature.”
Oostburg State Bank v. United Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 386 N.W.2d 53 (Wis. 1986). “It concluded that the courtesy agreement was binding because it conformed to sec. 807.05, Stats., and because the parties had an ethical obligation to abide by their agreement.”
Oostburg State Bank v. United Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 372 N.W.2d 471 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “The trial court indicated that when such courtesies are extended, sec. 807.05, Stats., requires that the trial court be advised and approve the agreement in order for it to be valid.”
Paul R. Ponfil Trust v. Charmoli Holdings, LLC, 2019 WI App 56 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 807.05 (2017-18).1 The Trust asked the circuit court to draft a release and indemnification in “usual form,” requesting the court to “adopt the construction which will result in a reasonable, fair and just contract as opposed to one that is unusual and extraordinary.”
Lueck's Home Improvement, Inc. v. Seal Tite Nat'l, Inc., 419 N.W.2d 340 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “The difficulty with this conclusion is that it is drawn from cases examining stipulations of settlement made pursuant to sec. 807.05, Stats., which provides: No agreement, stipulation, or consent between the parties or their attorneys, in respect to the proceedings in an action…”
Waite v. Easton-white Creek Lions, Inc., 2006 WI App 19 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “§ 807.05 (2003-04), [1] the agreement is not binding and the circuit court should not have enforced it.”
State v. Peppertree Resort Villas, Inc., 2002 WI App 207 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “However, the supreme court later clarified that its statement in Burmeister was made in the context of rejecting the application of the statute of frauds to the requirements of a binding stipulation under Wis. Stat. § 807.05 . Kocinski v. Home Ins.”
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.