Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 893.05 (2026)
Relation of statute of limitations to right and remedy
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
893.05893.05 Relation of statute of limitations to right and remedy. When the period within which an action may be commenced on a Wisconsin cause of action has expired, the right is extinguished as well as the remedy.
893.05 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: This new section is a codification of Wisconsin case law. See Maryland Casualty Company v. Beleznay, 245 Wis. 390, 14 N.W.2d 177 (1944), in which it is stated at page 393: “In Wisconsin the running of the statute of limitations absolutely extinguishes the cause of action for in Wisconsin limitations are not treated as statutes of repose. The limitation of actions is a right as well as a remedy, extinguishing the right on one side and creating a right on the other, which is as of high dignity as regards judicial remedies as any other right and it is a right which enjoys constitutional protection”. [Bill 326-A]
893.05 AnnotationThe expiration of the limitations period extinguishes the cause of action of the potential plaintiff and it also creates a right enjoyed by the would-be defendant to insist on that statutory bar. A defendant, having acquired a right to assert the statute of limitations bar by operation of law, would suffer plain legal prejudice if a plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal were granted. Wojtas v. Capital Guardian Trust Co., 477 F.3d 924 (2007).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Wenke Ex Rel. Laufenberg v. Gehl Co., 2004 WI 103 (Wis. 2004).
Wenke Ex Rel. Laufenberg v. Gehl Co., 2004 WI 103 (Wis. 2004). “In all, the longstanding judicial distinction between statutes of limitation and statutes of repose alluded to in *260 the Note to Wis. Stat. § 893.05 has nothing to do with how the two concepts are differentiated today.”
Bonnie M. Wojtas & Richard J. Wojtas v. Capital Guardian Trust Co. Now Known as Capital Bank & Trust Co., 477 F.3d 924 (7th Cir. 2007). “The court noted that under Wisconsin law, expiration of the applicable statute of limitations operates to extinguish a plaintiffs cause of action in its entirety, rather than merely barring the remedy in Wisconsin such that refiling the same claim in another jurisdiction would…”
Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. 224 (2017). “§ 15-1-3 (1) (2012) (expiration of the limitations period extinguishes the remedy and the right); Wis. Stat. § 893.05 (2011-2012) (same). Johnson argues that the Code’s word “claim” means “enforceable claim.”
Borello v. U.S. Oil Co., 388 N.W.2d 140 (Wis. 1986). “Section 893.05, Stats., provides that: "When the period within which an action may be commenced on a Wisconsin cause of action has expired, the right is extinguished as well as' the remedy.”
Pantoja v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 852 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2017). “The creditor retains the legal right to appeal to the debtor to honor the debt out of a sense of moral obligation even if the legal obligation can no longer be enforced in court.”
Barry Stimpson v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 944 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2019). “”); Wis. Stat. § 893.05 (“When the period within which an action may be commenced on a Wisconsin cause of action has expired, the right is extinguished as well as the remedy.”
Herrell v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 218 F. Supp. 3d 788 (E.D. Wis. 2016). “After all, Chase did not claim it had a legal right to collect the debt after the statute of limitations expired, and it certainly was not exercising a legal remedy to collect it.”
Strohbehn v. Access Grp. Inc., 292 F. Supp. 3d 819 (E.D. Wis. 2017). “Wis. Stat. § 893.05 (when statute of limitations expires, "the right is extinguished as well as the remedy").”
Merner v. Deere & Co., 176 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Wis. 2001). “The note accompanying § 893.05 provides: This new section is a codification of Wisconsin case law.”
Patricia A. Johnson v. Michael R. Masters, 2013 WI 43 (Wis. 2013). “'") 15 The record does not disclose whether the original counsel perhaps believed that the legislature would authorize QDROs and that it would eventually be possible to file one in accordance with the judgment of divorce, but as we noted above, attempts were being made to pass…”
Granado v. Sentry Ins., 599 N.W.2d 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Section 893.05, STATS. Granado concedes that if the complaint was filed on June 19, it was untimely and the action should be dismissed.”
Off. Supply Co., Inc. v. Basic/Four Corp., 538 F. Supp. 776 (E.D. Wis. 1982). “The Judicial Council Committee’s Note states that subsection (1) is an application of § 893.05, Wis.Stats., “that the running of a statute of limitations extinguishes the right as well as the remedy to a foreign cause of action on which an action is attempted to be brought in…”
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.