Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 807.10 (2026)
Settlements in behalf of minors or individuals adjudicated incompetent; judgments
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
807.10(1)(1) A compromise or settlement of an action or proceeding to which a minor or individual adjudicated incompetent is a party may be made by the guardian, if the guardian is represented by an attorney, or the guardian ad litem with the approval of the court in which such action or proceeding is pending.
807.10(2)(2) A cause of action in favor of or against a minor or individual adjudicated incompetent may, without the commencement of an action thereon, be settled by the guardian, if the guardian is represented by an attorney, with the approval of the court appointing the guardian, or by the guardian ad litem with the approval of any court of record. An order approving a settlement or compromise under this subsection and directing the consummation thereof shall have the same force and effect as a judgment of the court.
807.10(3)(3) If the amount awarded to a minor or individual adjudicated incompetent by judgment or by an order of the court approving a compromise settlement of a claim or cause of action of the minor or individual does not exceed the amount specified under s. 867.03 (1g) (intro.), exclusive of interest and costs and disbursements, and if there is no guardian of the ward, the court may upon application by the guardian ad litem after judgment, or in the order approving settlement, fix and allow the expenses of the action, including attorney fees and fees of guardian ad litem, authorize the payment of the total recovery to the clerk of the court, authorize and direct the guardian ad litem upon the payment to satisfy and discharge the judgment, or to execute releases to the parties entitled thereto, and enter into a stipulation dismissing the action upon its merits. The order shall also direct the clerk upon the payment to pay the costs, disbursements, and expenses of the action and to dispose of the balance in a manner provided in s. 54.12 (1), as selected by the court. The fee for the clerk’s services for handling, depositing, and disbursing funds under this subsection is prescribed in s. 814.61 (12) (a).
807.10 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 746 (1975); 1975 c. 218; 1981 c. 317; 1997 a. 290; 1999 a. 32; 2005 a. 387.
807.10 AnnotationThe quasi-judicial immunity of a guardian ad litem applies only to liability for the negligent performance of the guardian ad litem’s duties, not as a shield against court-imposed sanctions for failure to obey a court order. Evans v. Luebke, 2003 WI App 207, 267 Wis. 2d 596, 671 N.W.2d 304, 02-2210.
807.10 AnnotationWhether an individual has satisfied the standard for mental incompetence under this section should be determined by considering the individual’s ability to: 1) reasonably understand pertinent information; 2) rationally evaluate litigation choices based upon that information; and 3) rationally communicate with, assist, and direct counsel. Kainz v. Ingles, 2007 WI App 118, 300 Wis. 2d 670, 731 N.W.2d 313, 06-0963.
807.10 AnnotationBecause the claim was resolved when the plaintiff took judgment against the defendant’s insurer, the requirement that settlements involving minors be approved by the court was not implicated. Parsons v. American Family Insurance Co., 2007 WI App 211, 305 Wis. 2d 630, 740 N.W.2d 399, 06-2481.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Kainz v. Ingles, 2007 WI App 118 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).
Kainz v. Ingles, 2007 WI App 118 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “§ 807.10 (2003-04). [1] The main issue before us is one of first impression and asks us to determine the proper competency standard under § 807.”
Russell Adams v. Northland Equip. Co., Inc., 2014 WI 79 (Wis. 2014). “¶71 Adams contends that a court cannot compel an employee to accept settlement unless the settlement offer is in the best interests of the employee.”
John Teske v. Wilson Mut. Ins. Co., 928 N.W.2d 555 (Wis. 2019). “10 (1) (2013-14), A compromise or settlement of an action or proceeding to which a minor or individual adjudicated incompetent is a party may be made by the guardian, if the guardian is represented by an attorney, or the guardian ad litem with the approval of the court in which…”
Parsons Ex Rel. Cabaniss v. Am. Fam. Ins. Co., 740 N.W.2d 399 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “She also argues that, in the event the check does constitute an accord and satisfaction of claims against the Klugs, the settlement in its entirety is unenforceable against Parsons, a minor, because there was no court approval as required by Wis.”
Evans v. Luebke, 2003 WI App 207 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “from the present facts is not the statutory underpinnings of the guardian ad litem's appointment, but the nature of the allegations lodged against the guardian ad litem.”
C.L. v. Edson, 409 N.W.2d 417 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “After reviewing and approving the settlement agreements pursuant to sec. 807.10, Stats., the circuit court sealed certain records, including the settlement agreements.”
Conant v. Physicians Plus Med. Grp., Inc., 600 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “See §§ 807.10, 880.03 and .04, STATS. The Conants could then seek approval from the court supervising the guardianship for reimbursement from *286 Timothy's estate of the costs for transportation and care they provided to Timothy following his injuries.”
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Geebo LLC (E.D. Wis. 2023). “The Estate also relies on Wis. Stat. § 807.10 (2), which similarly restricts the private settlement of claims in which minors have interests.”
Vidana, Jorden v. Gomez, Luis (W.D. Wis. 2024). “The settlement involves minors, so it requires court approval under Wis. Stat. § 807.10 (1). A settlement hearing is scheduled for May 23.”
Victoria Lynn Schiller v. Theodore Howard Gurman (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “10 should be made by considering the following three factors: (1) the person’s ability to reasonably understand pertinent information; (2) the person’s ability to rationally evaluate litigation choices based upon that information; and (3) the person’s ability to rationally…”
Melvin D. Graham-Jackson v. Sandra Martin (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 807.10 and Kainz v. Ingles, 2007 WI App 118 , 300 Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 807.10(1) — 1 case
Kainz v. Ingles, 2007 WI App 118 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “§ 807.10 (2003-04). [1] The main issue before us is one of first impression and asks us to determine the proper competency standard under § 807.”
— Wis. Stat. § 807.10(2) — 1 case
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Geebo LLC (E.D. Wis. 2023). “The Estate also relies on Wis. Stat. § 807.10 (2), which similarly restricts the private settlement of claims in which minors have interests.”
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.