Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 893.14 (2026)
Limitation on use of a right of action as a defense or counterclaim
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
893.14893.14 Limitation on use of a right of action as a defense or counterclaim. Unless otherwise specifically prescribed by law, the period within which a cause of action may be used as a defense or counterclaim is computed from the time of the accrual of the cause of action until the time that the plaintiff commences the action in which the defense or counterclaim is made. A law limiting the time for commencement of an action is tolled by the assertion of the defense or the commencement of the counterclaim until final disposition of the defense or counterclaim. If a period of limitation is tolled under this section and the time remaining after final disposition in which an action may be commenced is less than 30 days, the period within which the action may be commenced is extended to 30 days from the date of final disposition.
893.14 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: This section is based upon previous ss. 893.48 and 893.49. The section provides, however, that a statute of limitations is tolled only from the assertion of the defense or counterclaim until the final disposition of the defense or counterclaim. Under previous s. 893.49 a statute of limitations was tolled from the commencement of the action in which the defense or counterclaim was asserted until the termination of the action. [Bill 326-A]
893.14 AnnotationWhen an action to recover damages for injuries to the person is commenced as a counterclaim pursuant to this section, the statute of limitations established by s. 893.54 applies. The tolling of the statute of limitations under this section begins on the date the defendant files the counterclaim. The phrase “unless otherwise specifically prescribed by law” applies to counterclaims that were already barred at the time the plaintiff filed the claim; such claims are not resurrected by the plaintiff’s filing. Donaldson v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2009 WI App 134, 321 Wis. 2d 244, 773 N.W.2d 470, 08-2289.
893.14 AnnotationIn determining whether a client exercised reasonable diligence to discover a claim against its attorney, the existence of a fiduciary relationship, rather than excusing a client entirely from its obligation to investigate, is merely one factor to be considered. Under the circumstances of this case, although a fiduciary relationship existed, the client was a sophisticated corporate actor and its president and chief executive officer harbored suspicions about the attorney’s conduct for approximately one year before the transaction in question closed. Those facts gave rise to a duty to investigate, regardless of the fiduciary relationship. Sands v. Menard, 2016 WI App 76, 372 Wis. 2d 126, 887 N.W.2d 94, 12-2377.
893.14 AnnotationAffirmed on other grounds. 2017 WI 110, 379 Wis. 2d 1, 904 N.W.2d 789, 12-2377.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases, 1974–2019 · leading case: Donaldson v. West Bend Mut. Ins., 2009 WI App 134 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009).
Donaldson v. West Bend Mut. Ins., 2009 WI App 134 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “54 is the applicable statute of limitations, but that the statute of limitations was tolled pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 893.14 when Donaldson filed her personal injury action arising out of the same incident.”
State v. Hamilton, 2003 WI 50 (Wis. 2003). “The court concluded that two former sections, Wis. Stat. §§ 893.14 and 893.16(1) (1977), governed the arrearages arising before July 1, 1980, inasmuch as the State had acquired a vested right "in the prior statute of limitations at the time the new statute became effective.”
Landis v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, Inc., 2001 WI 86 (Wis. 2001). “137, and "law limiting the time for commencement of an action," Wis. Stat. §§ 893.14 and 893.15. [16] The dissent alleges that we have failed to consider that the legislature is presumed to be aware of court decisions.”
C. Coakley Relocation Sys., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2008 WI 68 (Wis. 2008). “13 reference Wis. Stat. § 893.14 , which provides that the assertion of a defense or counterclaim tolls the time limit for commencement of an action "until final disposition of the defense or counterclaim.”
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 2002 WI App 89 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “In the alternative, the State asserts that former Wis. Stat. §§ 893.14 and 893.16(1) (1977) 4 are applicable to the entire arrearage with the same result.”
Tomczak v. Bailey, 578 N.W.2d 166 (Wis. 1998). “See Wis. Stat. §§ 893.14 , 893.205(1) (1977).”
United States Fire Ins. Co. v. E. D. Wesley Co., 313 N.W.2d 833 (Wis. 1982). “Sec. 893.14, Stats., at the time was a prefatory and explanatory section of all the various periods of limitation set forth in the subsequent statutes, including sec.”
Sands v. Menard, 2016 WI App 76 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “It is also undisputed that, under Wis. Stat. § 893.14 , the filing of Sands' complaint on November 3, 2008, tolled the statute of limitations on the counterclaim.”
Rod v. Farrell, 291 N.W.2d 568 (Wis. 1980). “The court of appeals reversed the circuit court's order relying on decisions of this court holding that the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases begins to run from the time the negligent act occurs and the accompanying injury results, not from the date of the…”
Les Moise, Inc. v. Rossignol Ski Co., Inc., 361 N.W.2d 653 (Wis. 1985). “" [10] The original provisions governing the limitation period for actions under Chapter 135 were the following: Section 893.14, Stats. 1973: "893.14 Actions, time for commencing.”
Funk v. Wollin Silo & Equip., Inc., 435 N.W.2d 244 (Wis. 1989). “(c) A cause of action, for the purposes of section 893.14 [see, now, §893.10] of the statutes, shall be deemed to accrue as of the time of the alleged wrongful act.”
Murray v. Mansheim, 2010 SD 18 (S.D. 2010). “28-1-114 (stating that counterclaim not barred by statutes of limitation if it was not barred at the time the claims asserted in the complaint were interposed); Va.”
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.