Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 895.044 (2026)
Damages for maintaining certain claims and counterclaims
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
895.044(1)(1) A party or a party’s attorney may be liable for costs and fees under this section for commencing, using, or continuing an action, special proceeding, counterclaim, defense, cross complaint, or appeal to which any of the following applies:
895.044(1)(a)(a) The action, special proceeding, counterclaim, defense, cross complaint, or appeal was commenced, used, or continued in bad faith, solely for purposes of harassing or maliciously injuring another.
895.044(1)(b)(b) The party or the party’s attorney knew, or should have known, that the action, special proceeding, counterclaim, defense, cross complaint, or appeal was without any reasonable basis in law or equity and could not be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
895.044(2)(2) Upon either party’s motion made at any time during the proceeding or upon judgment, if a court finds, upon clear and convincing evidence, that sub. (1) (a) or (b) applies to an action or special proceeding commenced or continued by a plaintiff or a counterclaim, defense, or cross complaint commenced, used, or continued by a defendant, the court:
895.044(2)(a)(a) May, if the party served with the motion withdraws, or appropriately corrects, the action, special proceeding, counterclaim, defense, or cross complaint within 21 days after service of the motion, or within such other period as the court may prescribe, award to the party making the motion, as damages, the actual costs incurred by the party as a result of the action, special proceeding, counterclaim, defense, or cross complaint, including the actual reasonable attorney fees the party incurred, including fees incurred in any dispute over the application of this section. In determining whether to award, and the appropriate amount of, damages under this paragraph, the court shall take into consideration the timely withdrawal or correction made by the party served with the motion.
895.044(2)(b)(b) Shall, if a withdrawal or correction under par. (a) is not timely made, award to the party making the motion, as damages, the actual costs incurred by the party as a result of the action, special proceeding, counterclaim, defense, or cross complaint, including the actual reasonable attorney fees the party incurred, including fees incurred in any dispute over the application of this section.
895.044(3)(3) If a party makes a motion under sub. (2), a copy of that motion and a notice of the date of the hearing on that motion shall be served on any party who is not represented by counsel only by personal service or by sending the motion to the party by registered mail.
895.044(4)(4) If an award under this section is affirmed upon appeal, the appellate court shall, upon completion of the appeal, remand the action to the trial court to award damages to compensate the successful party for the actual reasonable attorney fees the party incurred in the appeal.
895.044(5)(5) If the appellate court finds that sub. (1) (a) or (b) applies to an appeal, the appellate court shall, upon completion of the appeal, remand the action to the trial court to award damages to compensate the successful party for all the actual reasonable attorney fees the party incurred in the appeal. An appeal is subject to this subsection in its entirety if any element necessary to succeed on the appeal is supported solely by an argument that is described under sub. (1) (a) or (b).
895.044(6)(6) The costs and fees awarded under subs. (2), (4), and (5) may be assessed fully against the party bringing the action, special proceeding, cross complaint, defense, counterclaim, or appeal or the attorney representing the party, or both, jointly and severally, or may be assessed so that the party and the attorney each pay a portion of the costs and fees.
895.044(7)(7) This section does not apply to criminal actions or civil forfeiture actions. Subsection (5) does not apply to appeals under s. 809.107, 809.30, or 974.05 or to appeals of criminal or civil forfeiture actions.
895.044 AnnotationSub. (1), by using language that is identical to the language of s. 809.25 (3) (c), did not fundamentally alter what it means for an appeal to be frivolous. Thompson v. Ouellette, 2023 WI App 7, 406 Wis. 2d 99, 986 N.W.2d 338, 21-1087.
895.044 AnnotationDiscussing the interplay between sub. (5) and s. 809.25 (3), two parallel statutes that do not cross reference each other and that both purport to govern how appellate courts should direct the payment of attorney fees for frivolous appeals. Thompson v. Ouellette, 2023 WI App 7, 406 Wis. 2d 99, 986 N.W.2d 338, 21-1087.
895.044 AnnotationSub. (5) retains the longstanding rule that sanctions for a frivolous appeal will not be awarded unless the entire appeal is frivolous. However, sub. (5) modifies what it means for an appeal to be entirely frivolous by abrogating the specific articulation and application of that standard found in Baumeister, 2004 WI 148. One situation in which an appeal is frivolous in its entirety is when an element, issue, or argument “necessary to succeed on appeal” is supported solely by frivolous arguments. An element, issue, or argument is necessary to succeed on appeal if the appellant cannot secure a reversal, a remand, or another form of relief without prevailing on that element, issue, or argument. Thompson v. Ouellette, 2023 WI App 7, 406 Wis. 2d 99, 986 N.W.2d 338, 21-1087.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: Joseph Gene Thompson v. Susanne Rose Ouellette, 2023 WI App 7 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
Joseph Gene Thompson v. Susanne Rose Ouellette, 2023 WI App 7 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “044(5) provides that an appeal is frivolous “in its entirety if any element necessary to succeed on the appeal is supported solely by an argument that is [frivolous].”
Quiles v. Pokos, 2011 WI App 97 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “See also Wis. Stat. § 895.044 , which the Legislature published on January 31, 2011, see 2011 Wis.”
Oakwood JT Klein, LLC v. Oakwood Acquisition, LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 895.044 (2019-20).1 Acquisition argues that the court erred in rejecting the following alternative grounds for imposing sanctions: JT Klein allegedly brought this action in bad faith, for the sole purpose of harassing Acquisition; or, JT Klein or its counsel knew or should…”
Harry B. Mains v. Russ Darrow Grp., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 895.044 ¶18 Darrow’s request under WIS.”
Eagle Cove Camp & Conf. Ctr., Inc. v. Oneida Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 895.044 (2017-18),1 we agree that Eagle Cove’s action against the Town was frivolous.”
Vill. of Genoa City v. April Lynn Tudor (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “044(2)(a) provides that a circuit court “[m]ay”—but is not required to—award sanctions against a party who “withdraws, or appropriately corrects” a frivolously maintained action after being served with a motion for sanctions.”
Creative Fin., Inc. v. Carlos Rangel (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 895.044(5) (providing identical standards).”
Nicola Charlton v. Mark Charlton (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 895.044. Whether an appeal is frivolous is a question of law.”
Elizabeth Kemp v. Wisconsin Lawyers Mut. Ins. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 895.044(1) is a question of law. See Stern, 185 Wis.”
Midwest Dental Care, Mondovi, Inc. v. Dr. Kristina B. Welle (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§§ 895.044(1)(a), (5). She contends that Midwest Dental had no good faith basis in law or fact to challenge the circuit court’s determination that the employment contract was ambiguous regarding what standards would be used to evaluate a termination for cause.”
Rafeal D. Newson v. Jeffrey Wagner (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “While we are not persuaded by Newson’s arguments, we cannot conclude that those arguments lack any reasonable basis in law or equity or were advanced solely for the purpose of harassing the county defendants. We therefore deny the county defendants’ request for fees and costs…”
Harry B. Mains v. Russ Darrow Grp., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “We therefore held that, because Mains did not withdraw the action within twenty-one days after service of the motion, the Darrow Companies are entitled (“shall”) to actual costs and attorney fees pursuant to § 895.044(2)(b) if the [circuit] court finds upon remand that the…”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.044(1) — 3 cases
Joseph Gene Thompson v. Susanne Rose Ouellette, 2023 WI App 7 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “044(5) provides that an appeal is frivolous “in its entirety if any element necessary to succeed on the appeal is supported solely by an argument that is [frivolous].”
Oakwood JT Klein, LLC v. Oakwood Acquisition, LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 895.044 (2019-20).1 Acquisition argues that the court erred in rejecting the following alternative grounds for imposing sanctions: JT Klein allegedly brought this action in bad faith, for the sole purpose of harassing Acquisition; or, JT Klein or its counsel knew or should…”
Elizabeth Kemp v. Wisconsin Lawyers Mut. Ins. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 895.044(1) is a question of law. See Stern, 185 Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.044(1)(a) — 3 cases
Joseph Gene Thompson v. Susanne Rose Ouellette, 2023 WI App 7 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “044(5) provides that an appeal is frivolous “in its entirety if any element necessary to succeed on the appeal is supported solely by an argument that is [frivolous].”
Oakwood JT Klein, LLC v. Oakwood Acquisition, LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 895.044 (2019-20).1 Acquisition argues that the court erred in rejecting the following alternative grounds for imposing sanctions: JT Klein allegedly brought this action in bad faith, for the sole purpose of harassing Acquisition; or, JT Klein or its counsel knew or should…”
Midwest Dental Care, Mondovi, Inc. v. Dr. Kristina B. Welle (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§§ 895.044(1)(a), (5). She contends that Midwest Dental had no good faith basis in law or fact to challenge the circuit court’s determination that the employment contract was ambiguous regarding what standards would be used to evaluate a termination for cause.”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.044(1)(b) — 2 cases
Joseph Gene Thompson v. Susanne Rose Ouellette, 2023 WI App 7 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “044(5) provides that an appeal is frivolous “in its entirety if any element necessary to succeed on the appeal is supported solely by an argument that is [frivolous].”
Oakwood JT Klein, LLC v. Oakwood Acquisition, LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 895.044 (2019-20).1 Acquisition argues that the court erred in rejecting the following alternative grounds for imposing sanctions: JT Klein allegedly brought this action in bad faith, for the sole purpose of harassing Acquisition; or, JT Klein or its counsel knew or should…”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.044(2) — 4 cases
Joseph Gene Thompson v. Susanne Rose Ouellette, 2023 WI App 7 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “044(5) provides that an appeal is frivolous “in its entirety if any element necessary to succeed on the appeal is supported solely by an argument that is [frivolous].”
Harry B. Mains v. Russ Darrow Grp., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 895.044 ¶18 Darrow’s request under WIS.”
Oakwood JT Klein, LLC v. Oakwood Acquisition, LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 895.044 (2019-20).1 Acquisition argues that the court erred in rejecting the following alternative grounds for imposing sanctions: JT Klein allegedly brought this action in bad faith, for the sole purpose of harassing Acquisition; or, JT Klein or its counsel knew or should…”
Elizabeth Kemp v. Wisconsin Lawyers Mut. Ins. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 895.044(1) is a question of law. See Stern, 185 Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.044(2)(a) — 2 cases
Vill. of Genoa City v. April Lynn Tudor (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “044(2)(a) provides that a circuit court “[m]ay”—but is not required to—award sanctions against a party who “withdraws, or appropriately corrects” a frivolously maintained action after being served with a motion for sanctions.”
Harry B. Mains v. Russ Darrow Grp., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 895.044 ¶18 Darrow’s request under WIS.”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.044(2)(b) — 3 cases
Eagle Cove Camp & Conf. Ctr., Inc. v. Oneida Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 895.044 (2017-18),1 we agree that Eagle Cove’s action against the Town was frivolous.”
Harry B. Mains v. Russ Darrow Grp., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 895.044 ¶18 Darrow’s request under WIS.”
Harry B. Mains v. Russ Darrow Grp., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “We therefore held that, because Mains did not withdraw the action within twenty-one days after service of the motion, the Darrow Companies are entitled (“shall”) to actual costs and attorney fees pursuant to § 895.044(2)(b) if the [circuit] court finds upon remand that the…”
— Wis. Stat. § 895.044(5) — 8 cases
Joseph Gene Thompson v. Susanne Rose Ouellette, 2023 WI App 7 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “044(5) provides that an appeal is frivolous “in its entirety if any element necessary to succeed on the appeal is supported solely by an argument that is [frivolous].”
Creative Fin., Inc. v. Carlos Rangel (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 895.044(5) (providing identical standards).”
Eagle Cove Camp & Conf. Ctr., Inc. v. Oneida Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 895.044 (2017-18),1 we agree that Eagle Cove’s action against the Town was frivolous.”
Rafeal D. Newson v. Jeffrey Wagner (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “While we are not persuaded by Newson’s arguments, we cannot conclude that those arguments lack any reasonable basis in law or equity or were advanced solely for the purpose of harassing the county defendants. We therefore deny the county defendants’ request for fees and costs…”
Richard A. Lauer v. Dennis Lauer (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
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.