Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 807.12 (2026)
Suing by fictitious name or as unknown; partners’ names unknown
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
807.12(1)(1) When the name or a part of the name of any defendant, or when any proper party defendant to an action to establish or enforce, redeem from or discharge a lien or claim to property is unknown to the plaintiff, such defendant may be designated a defendant by so much of the name as is known, or by a fictitious name, or as an unknown heir, representative, owner or person as the case may require, adding such description as may reasonably indicate the person intended. But no person whose title to or interest in land appears of record or who is in actual occupancy of land shall be proceeded against as an unknown owner.
807.12(2)(2) When the name of such defendant is ascertained the process, pleadings and all proceedings may be amended by an order directing the insertion of the true name instead of the designation employed.
807.12(3)(3) In an action against a partnership, if the names of the partners are unknown to the plaintiff, all proceedings may be in the partnership name until the names of the partners are ascertained, whereupon the process, pleadings and all proceedings shall be amended by order directing the insertion of such names.
807.12 AnnotationThis section does not authorize judgment against an unnamed individual. Miller v. Smith, 100 Wis. 2d 609, 302 N.W.2d 468 (1981).
807.12 AnnotationWhen an action against an unnamed defendant under this section was filed on the last day of the limitation period and amended process naming the defendant was served within 60 days after filing, the action was not barred. Relation back requirements of s. 802.09 (3) were inapplicable. Lak v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 100 Wis. 2d 641, 302 N.W.2d 483 (1981).
807.12 AnnotationA fictitiously designated defendant’s right to extinction of an action does not effectively vest until 60 days after the statute of limitations runs. Lavine v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 140 Wis. 2d 434, 410 N.W.2d 623 (Ct. App. 1987).
807.12 AnnotationA cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff knows the tortfeasor’s identity or reasonably should have discovered it. Spitler v. Dean, 148 Wis. 2d 630, 436 N.W.2d 308 (1989).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Spitler v. Dean, 436 N.W.2d 308 (Wis. 1989).
Spitler v. Dean, 436 N.W.2d 308 (Wis. 1989). “Dean maintains that Spitler did not need to know the identity of the tortfeasor in order to obtain judicial relief because he could have filed a claim under the “fictitious name” statute, sec. 807.12, Stats., allowing Spitler to subpoena records, conduct depositions, and take…”
Miller v. Smith, 302 N.W.2d 468 (Wis. 1981). “*615 The question presented in this case gives rise to the following inquiry: Was the default judgment rendered against an unknown state employee valid? An analysis of the fictitious name statute, sec. 807.12, Stats., as well as the statutes and case law governing personal…”
Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Ins., 2012 WI 26 (Wis. 2012). “2d 468 (1981) (interpreting Wis. Stat. § 807.12 (2) (1977-78), which provided that "[w]hen the name of such defendant [designated by a fictitious name] is ascertained the process, pleadings and all proceedings may be amended by an order directing the insertion of the true name…”
Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 2012 WI 31 (Wis. 2012). “See Wis. Stat. § 807.12 (2007-08) (permitting a plaintiff to designate an unknown defendant by a fictitious name until the defendant's true name is ascertained).”
Bell v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 541 N.W.2d 824 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “Second, under § 807.12(1), STATS., the Bells could have commenced an action against an unknown or unidentified entity within the Iowa two-year statute of limitations, and then sought the identity of the insurance company through discovery.”
Harder v. Pfitzinger, 2004 WI 102 (Wis. 2004). “3 The third-party complaint listed ABC Insurance Company, XYZ Insurance Company, and EFG Insurance Company, all fictitiously named companies, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 807.12 . 4 Wisconsin Stat. § 807.”
Mikula v. Miller Brewing Co., 2005 WI App 92 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “1 Mikula used the "ABC Insurance Companies" moniker to designate, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 807.12 (2003-04), the unknown insurance companies that issued policies to Miller for claims such as those set forth in his complaint.”
CH2M Hill, Inc. v. Black & Veatch, 557 N.W.2d 829 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “[1] Section 807.12, STATS., provides in pertinent part: Suing by fictitious name or as unknown; partners' names unknown.”
Tammy Howell, a Minor, by Her Guardian Ad Litem, Charles Goerdt v. Tribune Ent. Co. & Abc Ins. Co., 106 F.3d 215 (7th Cir. 1997). “This rule authorizes the district court to dismiss the defendant from the suit if service is not *218 accomplished within the 120 days, and it wasn’t accomplished within that time here; nor was any extension of the deadline for service sought or granted. Still, the court didn’t,…”
Dakin v. Marciniak, 2005 WI App 67 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “See Wis. Stat. § 807.12 (1). On November 24, Dakin amended her complaint, adding Roundy's as a defendant.”
Lak v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 302 N.W.2d 483 (Wis. 1981). “” The plaintiff then stated four causes of action, one for negligence, another in strict liability and the other two on behalf of Mrs.”
Lavine Ex Rel. Ladd v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 410 N.W.2d 623 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “Lavine contends that his filing a first amended summons and complaint shortly before the three-year limitation ran, using fictitious names pursuant to sec. 807.12, Stats., gave him sixty additional days to identify and serve Mann Bros, and the other fictitiously named defendants.”
— Wis. Stat. § 807.12(1) — 4 cases
Spitler v. Dean, 436 N.W.2d 308 (Wis. 1989). “Dean maintains that Spitler did not need to know the identity of the tortfeasor in order to obtain judicial relief because he could have filed a claim under the “fictitious name” statute, sec. 807.12, Stats., allowing Spitler to subpoena records, conduct depositions, and take…”
Bell v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 541 N.W.2d 824 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “Second, under § 807.12(1), STATS., the Bells could have commenced an action against an unknown or unidentified entity within the Iowa two-year statute of limitations, and then sought the identity of the insurance company through discovery.”
Miller v. Smith, 302 N.W.2d 468 (Wis. 1981). “*615 The question presented in this case gives rise to the following inquiry: Was the default judgment rendered against an unknown state employee valid? An analysis of the fictitious name statute, sec. 807.12, Stats., as well as the statutes and case law governing personal…”
Lavine Ex Rel. Ladd v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 410 N.W.2d 623 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “Lavine contends that his filing a first amended summons and complaint shortly before the three-year limitation ran, using fictitious names pursuant to sec. 807.12, Stats., gave him sixty additional days to identify and serve Mann Bros, and the other fictitiously named defendants.”
— Wis. Stat. § 807.12(2) — 6 cases
Spitler v. Dean, 436 N.W.2d 308 (Wis. 1989). “Dean maintains that Spitler did not need to know the identity of the tortfeasor in order to obtain judicial relief because he could have filed a claim under the “fictitious name” statute, sec. 807.12, Stats., allowing Spitler to subpoena records, conduct depositions, and take…”
Miller v. Smith, 302 N.W.2d 468 (Wis. 1981). “*615 The question presented in this case gives rise to the following inquiry: Was the default judgment rendered against an unknown state employee valid? An analysis of the fictitious name statute, sec. 807.12, Stats., as well as the statutes and case law governing personal…”
Lak v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 302 N.W.2d 483 (Wis. 1981). “” The plaintiff then stated four causes of action, one for negligence, another in strict liability and the other two on behalf of Mrs.”
Lavine Ex Rel. Ladd v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 410 N.W.2d 623 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “Lavine contends that his filing a first amended summons and complaint shortly before the three-year limitation ran, using fictitious names pursuant to sec. 807.12, Stats., gave him sixty additional days to identify and serve Mann Bros, and the other fictitiously named defendants.”
State v. Wolverton, 533 N.W.2d 167 (Wis. 1995).
— Wis. Stat. § 807.12(3) — 1 case
CH2M Hill, Inc. v. Black & Veatch, 557 N.W.2d 829 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “[1] Section 807.12, STATS., provides in pertinent part: Suing by fictitious name or as unknown; partners' names unknown.”
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.