801.05 Annotation
Wisconsin courts may issue in personam orders that may operate on out-of-state property. Dalton v. Meister,
71 Wis. 2d 504,
239 N.W.2d 9 (1976).
801.05 Annotation
The trial court was entitled to consider the complaint and answer in determining whether the court had jurisdiction. Merco Distributing Corp. v. O & R Engines, Inc.
71 Wis. 2d 792,
239 N.W.2d 97 (1976).
801.05 Annotation
A manufacturer having no dealers or distributors in Wisconsin was amenable to jurisdiction under sub. (4) by virtue of magazine advertisement solicitations and out-of-state sales to Wisconsin residents. Fields v. Playboy Club of Lake Geneva, Inc.
75 Wis. 2d 644,
250 N.W.2d 311 (1977).
801.05 Annotation
Findings of the facts requisite for jurisdiction under sub. (4) (b) may properly be made by reasonable inference from facts proven in the record. Stevens v. White Motor Corp.
77 Wis. 2d 64,
252 N.W.2d 88 (1977).
801.05 Annotation
Standards of the "long-arm" statute prima facie meet due process requirements. Schmitz v. Hunter Machinery Co.
89 Wis. 2d 388,
279 N.W.2d 172 (1979).
801.05 Annotation
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish jurisdiction under this section. Lincoln v. Seawright,
104 Wis. 2d 4,
310 N.W.2d 596 (1981).
801.05 Annotation
Substantially higher "doing business" contacts under sub. (1) (d) are required when a nonresident plaintiff brings a foreign cause of action. Vermont Yogurt v. Blanke Baer Fruit & Flavor,
107 Wis. 2d 603,
321 N.W.2d 315 (Ct. App. 1982).
801.05 Annotation
Sub. (11) provides 3 independent sources of personal jurisdiction that must be considered in the disjunctive. McAleavy v. McAleavy,
150 Wis. 2d 26,
440 N.W.2d 566 (1989).
801.05 Annotation
Telephone calls received by a defendant do not, standing alone, constitute sufficient contact to establish a basis for personal jurisdiction. Dietrich v. Patients Compensation Board,
169 Wis. 2d 471,
485 N.W.2d 614 (Ct. App. 1992).
801.05 Annotation
A non-resident corporate officer alleged to have committed fraud or misrepresentation is subject to Wisconsin jurisdiction only if some act or omission was committed in Wisconsin. Pavlic v. Woodrum,
169 Wis. 2d 585,
486 N.W.2d 533, (Ct. App. 1992).
801.05 Annotation
The term "service activities" under sub. (4) (a) requires that a defendant be engaged in some type of regular ongoing or repetitive activities in Wisconsin. Two meetings does not constitute service activities carried on with in the state. Housing Horizons, LLC v. Alexander Company, Inc. 2000 WI App 9,
232 Wis. 2d 178,
606 N.W.2d 263,
98-3635.
801.05 Annotation
"Process" in sub. (4) (b) means subjecting something to a particular system of handling to effect a particular result and preparing something for market or other commercial use by subjecting it to a process. Kopke v. A. Hartrodt S.R.L. 2001 WI 99,
245 Wis. 2d 396,
629 N.W.2d 662,
99-3144.
801.05 Annotation
A stream of commerce theory that it is not unreasonable to subject a nonresident manufacturer or distributor to suit if the sale of a product is not simply an isolated occurrence but arises from efforts to serve, directly or indirectly, the market for the product in the state, is applicable in determining whether sufficient minimum contacts exist for jurisdiction to be found. Kopke v. A. Hartrodt S.R.L. 2001 WI 99,
245 Wis. 2d 396,
629 N.W.2d 662,
99-3144.
801.05 Annotation
Sub. (1) (d) may be a basis for personal jurisdiction over a respondent in a divorce and is not restricted to business or employment related activities. Bushelman v. Bushelman, 2001 WI App 124,
246 Wis. 2d 317,
629 N.W.2d 795,
00-0670.
801.05 Annotation
The presumption of compliance with due process arising from this section may be rebutted by a defendant. There is a 5-factor test to analyze the substantiality of the defendant's contacts for due process purposes: the quantity, nature, and quality of the contacts, the source of the cause of action and its connection with those contacts, the interest of the state in the action, and convenience to the parties. Bushelman v. Bushelman, 2001 WI App 124,
246 Wis. 2d 317,
629 N.W.2d 795,
00-0670.
801.05 Annotation
If a person is induced by false representations to come within the jurisdiction of a court for the purpose of obtaining service of process upon him or her, it is an abuse of legal process, and the service will be set aside. Service on a person who enters the state to engage in settlement talks will not be set aside in the absence of an agreement that service will not be attempted. Manitowoc Western Company, Inc. v. Montonen, 2002 WI 21,
250 Wis. 2d 452,
639 N.W.2d 726,
00-0420.
801.05 Annotation
Traditional personal jurisdiction is not required in child custody proceedings. Child custody proceedings under ch. 822 are valid even in the absence of minimum contacts over an out-of-state parent. Section 801.05 (11) provides sufficient due process protection to out-of-state parents based on notice and an opportunity to be heard. Tammie J. C. v. Robert T. R. 2003 WI 61,
262 Wis. 2d 217,
663 N.W.2d 734,
01-2787.
801.05 Annotation
In analyzing the quality of a defendant's contacts within the state, personal visits are the highest quality of contact. The next highest quality of contact is personal contact of another type. Druschel v. Cloeren, 2006 WI App 190,
295 Wis. 2d 858,
723 N.W. 2d 430,
05-2575.
801.05 Annotation
Minimum contacts require the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he or she should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. The concept that the contacts of an individual, made as an agent of a business, do not count toward the minimum contacts required for personal jurisdiction, commonly referred to as the fiduciary shield doctrine, has not been adopted in Wisconsin. Druschel v. Cloeren, 2006 WI App 190,
295 Wis. 2d 858,
723 N.W. 2d 430,
05-2575.
801.05 Annotation
The constitutional touchstone of long-arm jurisdiction is whether a defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state. If the defendant's efforts are purposefully directed toward another state's resident, jurisdiction may not be avoided merely because he or she did not physically enter the forum state. A substantial amount of business is transacted solely by mail and wire communications across state lines, making physical presence unnecessary. Stayart v. Hance, 2007 WI App 204,
747 N.W. 2d 149,
06-1418.
801.05 Annotation
Sub. (1) (d) plainly requires the circuit court to analyze a defendant's contacts at the time the action is commenced. It was error for the circuit court to analyze the defendant's contacts preceding the commencement of the action. FL Hunts, LLC v. Wheeler, 2010 WI App 10,
322 Wis. 2d 738,
780 N.W.2d 529,
08-2506.
801.05 Annotation
Courts consider 5 factors when analyzing whether a defendant has substantial contacts under sub. (1) (d): 1) the quantity of the contacts; 2) the quality of the contacts; 3) the source of the contacts and their connection with the cause of action; 4) the state's interest; and 5) the convenience of the parties. FL Hunts, LLC v. Wheeler, 2010 WI App 10,
322 Wis. 2d 738,
780 N.W.2d 529,
08-2506.
801.05 Annotation
To determine whether an action relates to goods shipped from this state in a breach of contract action under sub. (5) (d), the court analyzes the contract's provisions and the complaint's allegations. Jurisdiction was not appropriate under sub. (5) (d) in this case because the action did not relate to the equipment the plaintiff provided the defendant. This case involved an employment contract, and not a sales contract, that made only one passing reference to equipment and lacked provisions traditionally included in sales contracts. FL Hunts, LLC v. Wheeler, 2010 WI App 10,
322 Wis. 2d 738,
780 N.W.2d 529,
08-2506.
801.05 Annotation
A father's acquiescence in his daughter's desire to live with her mother in California did not confer jurisdiction over the father in California courts. Kulko v. California Superior Court,
436 U.S. 84 (1978).
801.05 Annotation
A state may not exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction over a defendant having no forum contacts by attacking a contractual obligation of the defendant's insurer licensed in the state. Rush v. Savchuk,
444 U.S. 320 (1980).
801.05 Annotation
When an accident involving only Wisconsin residents occurred in Wisconsin, the fact that the decedent had been employed in Minnesota conferred jurisdiction on the Minnesota courts and Minnesota insurance law was applicable. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague,
449 U.S. 302 (1981).
801.05 Annotation
When an out-of-state defendant placed an order in Wisconsin, but conducted no other activities in the state, the minimum contacts test was not satisfied. Lakeside Bridge & Steel v. Mountain State Const.
597 F.2d 596 (1979).
801.05 Annotation
A New York corporation was subject to the long-arm statute when agents of the corporation made 2 visits to the state in connection with business on which the claim was based. Wisconsin Electrical Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Pennant Products,
619 F.2d 676 (1980).
801.05 Annotation
The Wisconsin circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction over trust assets in Illinois, making removal to Wisconsin federal district court improper. Norton v. Bridges,
712 F.2d 1156 (1983).
801.05 Annotation
"Processed" under sub. (4) (b) included a distributor's purchase and sale of goods in the normal course of distribution of those goods. Nelson By Carson v. Park Industries, Inc.
717 F.2d 1120 (1983).
801.05 Annotation
A buyer's inspection of goods before shipment from the state was sufficient contact for jurisdiction. Afram Export Corp. v. Metallurgiki Halyps, S.A.
772 F.2d 1358 (1985).
801.05 Annotation
An act or omission occurring outside the state with consequences in the state does not fit the tort provisions of sub. (3). Services within the state under sub. (5) do not include the purchase of insurance from a state company. Federated Rural Electric Ins. v. Inland Power & Light,
18 F.3d 389 (1994).
801.05 Annotation
Jurisdiction in an action for misrepresentation in the sale of a boat did not exist when the only contact was that the boat would be operated partly in Wisconsin and that the seller wrote a letter to the Wisconsin buyer confirming the already existing contract. McCalla v. A. J. Industries, Inc.
352 F. Supp. 544 (1973).
801.05 Annotation
The fact that a Virginia corporation was a distributor for a Wisconsin corporation in Virginia is not enough to justify an action in Wisconsin. Watral v. Murphy Diesel Co.
358 F. Supp. 968 (1973).
801.05 Annotation
A Texas company that ordered a turbine from a Wisconsin manufacturer and sent representatives to Wisconsin twice was subject to Wisconsin jurisdiction. Nordberg Division, Rex Chainbelt, Inc. v. Hudson Engineering Corp.
361 F. Supp. 903 (1973).
801.05 Annotation
An action for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while using a machine manufactured by the defendant in France and sold to the plaintiff's employer was an action for personal injury based on breach of warranty and strict liability under subs. (4) and (5) (c). Davis v. Mercier-Freres,
368 F. Supp. 498 (1973).
801.05 Annotation
Service upon a nonresident defendant's father at the father's residence was insufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident, despite claimed actual notice, when no attempt was made to comply with s. 345.09. Chilcote v. Shertzer,
372 F. Supp. 86 (1974).
801.05 Annotation
The court had jurisdiction over an insurer under sub. (1) (d) based on settlement negotiations conducted by an adjuster, and the insurer was estopped from asserting its no-action clause. Kirchen v. Orth,
390 F. Supp. 313 (1975).
801.05 Annotation
The court had in-personam jurisdiction by virtue of sub. (5) (b) and (e) when the defendant made initial contact with the plaintiff, sent its president to Milwaukee to solicit the plaintiff's participation in the transaction, delivered documentation of title to the subject property to the plaintiff in Milwaukee, accepted payment in Milwaukee, and executed a lease agreement in Milwaukee. Ridge Leasing Corp. v. Monarch Royalty, Inc.
392 F. Supp. 573 (1975).
801.05 Annotation
To determine whether a particular nonresident is "doing business" within this state, the court must consider the party's overall activities within the state, past and present, not at some fixed point in time. Modern Cycle Sales, Inc. v. Burkhardt-Larson Co.
395 F. Supp. 587 (1975).
801.05 Annotation
Actions of out-of-state police officials in continuously soliciting the plaintiff's arrest by a "fugitive from justice notice" entered into an FBI computer data base, representing to Wisconsin authorities that extradition was desired and requesting that the plaintiff be arrested was sufficient minimum contact with Wisconsin to permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Maney v. Ratcliff,
399 F. Supp. 760 (1975).
801.05 Annotation
Infrequent use of Wisconsin roads by an Idaho trucking corporation did not constitute "continuous and systematic" activity necessary to confer jurisdiction under this section. Ladwig v. Trucks Ins. Exch.
498 F. Supp. 161 (1980).
801.05 Annotation
A foreign corporation is not subject to jurisdiction in Wisconsin when the sole basis for assertion of jurisdiction was unilateral activity of the resident plaintiff. Jadair, Inc. v. Walt Keeler Co., Inc.
508 F. Supp. 879 (1981).
801.05 Annotation
In applying the test under sub. (1) (d), the court looks to the defendant's general contacts with the forum state, not merely its contacts arising out of the specific transaction at issue. Jadair v. Van Lott, Inc.
512 F. Supp. 1141 (1981).
801.05 Annotation
The defendant's attorney's delivery of checks in the state was insufficient contact to confer jurisdiction under this section. Sed, Inc. v. Bohager/Goodhues, Inc.
538 F. Supp. 196 (1982).
801.05 Annotation
Contracts for services and contracts for goods are distinguished. L.B. Sales Corp. v. Dial Mfg., Inc.
593 F. Supp. 290 (1984).
801.05 Annotation
A single sale in the state was insufficient contact to confer personal jurisdiction. Uni-Bond, LTD. v. Schultz,
607 F. Supp. 1361 (1985).
801.05 Annotation
A parent-subsidiary relationship is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over the parent for long-arm purposes so long as the subsidiary carries on sufficient activities in the state. Hayeland v. Jaques,
847 F. Supp 630 (1994).
801.05 Annotation
This section is intended to reach to the fullest extent allowed under the due process clause. Farby Glove & Mitten Co. v. Spitzer,
908 F. Supp. 625 (1995).
801.05 Annotation
Foreseeability that the defendant's actions in one state may cause injury in Wisconsin does not amount to causing a local act. The consequences of an act alone do not establish jurisdiction over the defendant under sub. (3). Nelson v. Bulso,
979 F. Supp 1239 (1997).
801.05 Annotation
In order for solicitation activities to trigger personal jurisdiction the solicitor must anticipate receiving a financial benefit from the activity. Knot Just Beads v. Knot Just Beads, Inc.
217 F. Supp. 2d 932 (2002).
801.05 Annotation
The fiduciary shield doctrine, which denies personal jurisdiction over an individual whose presence and activity in a state were solely on behalf of an employer or other principal, was not found to be a part of Wisconsin law. Norkol/Fibercore, Inc. v. Grubb,
279 F.3d 993 (2003).
801.05 Annotation
The state may not assert quasi in rem jurisdiction over an insurance company's contractual obligations to defend and indemnify its insured. 64 MLR 374 (1980).
801.05 Annotation
Stacking the deck: Wisconsin's application of Leflar's choice-influencing considerations to torts choice-of-law cases. White. 1985 WLR 401.
801.05 Annotation
Wisconsin's `Stream of Commerce' Theory of Personal Jurisdiction. La Fave. Wis. Law. Nov. 2002.
801.06
801.06
Personal jurisdiction, grounds for without service of summons. A court of this state having jurisdiction of the subject matter may, without a summons having been served upon a person, exercise jurisdiction in an action over a person with respect to any counterclaim asserted against that person in an action which the person has commenced in this state and also over any person who appears in the action and waives the defense of lack of jurisdiction over his or her person as provided in
s. 802.06 (8). An appearance to contest the basis for in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction under
s. 802.06 (2) (a) 3. without seeking any other relief does not constitute an appearance within the meaning of this section.
801.06 History
History: Sup. Ct. Order,
67 Wis. 2d 585, 596 (1975);
1975 c. 218;
1993 a. 213.
801.07
801.07
Jurisdiction in rem or quasi in rem, grounds for generally. A court of this state having jurisdiction of the subject matter may exercise jurisdiction in rem or quasi in rem on the grounds stated in this section. A judgment in rem or quasi in rem may affect the interests of a defendant in the status, property or thing acted upon only if a summons has been served upon the defendant pursuant to
s. 801.12. Jurisdiction in rem or quasi in rem may be invoked in any of the following cases:
801.07(1)
(1) When the subject of the action is real or personal property in this state and the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, therein, or the relief demanded consists wholly or partially in excluding the defendant from any interest or lien therein. This subsection shall apply when any such defendant is unknown.
801.07(2)
(2) When the action is to foreclose, redeem from or satisfy a mortgage, claim or lien upon real estate within this state.
801.07(3)
(3) When the defendant has property within this state which has been attached or has a debtor within the state who has been garnisheed. Jurisdiction under this subsection may be independent of or supplementary to jurisdiction acquired under
subs. (1) and
(2).
801.07(4)
(4) When the action is to declare property within this state a public nuisance.
801.07(5)
(5) When the action is an action affecting the family under
s. 767.001 (1) (a) to
(d) and when the residence requirements of
s. 767.301 have been met, a court having subject matter jurisdiction may exercise jurisdiction quasi in rem to determine questions of status if the respondent has been served under
s. 801.11 (1). Notwithstanding
s. 801.11 (intro.), the court need not have grounds for personal jurisdiction under
s. 801.05 in order to make a determination of the status of a marriage under this subsection.
801.07 Annotation
This section requires that in rem actions under s. 161.555 [now s. 961.555] must be commenced against a person having an interest in property seized under s. 161.55 [now s. 961.55]. State v. One 1973 Cadillac,
95 Wis. 2d 641,
291 N.W.2d 626 (Ct. App. 1980).
801.07 Annotation
For quasi in rem jurisdiction under sub. (5), minimum contacts between the defendant and the state are necessary. Mendez v. Hernandez-Mendez,
213 Wis. 2d 217,
570 N.W.2d 563 (Ct. App. 1997),
96-1731.
801.07 Annotation
Sub. (3) applies when a settlement offer is made at least 20 days before trial. When a dispute is resolved by arbitration there is no trial and sub. (3) does not apply. Lane v. Williams, 2000 WI App 263,
240 Wis. 2d 255,
621 N.W.2d 922,
00-0852.
801.07 Annotation
The minimum contacts standard for quasi in rem jurisdiction is discussed. Shaffer v. Heitner,
433 U.S. 186 (1977).
801.07 Annotation
Posting a notice of eviction on an apartment door did not satisfy minimum requirements of due process. Greene v. Lindsey,
456 U.S. 444 (1982).
801.08
801.08
Objection to personal jurisdiction. 801.08(1)
(1) All issues of fact and law raised by an objection to the court's jurisdiction over the person or property as provided by
s. 802.06 (2) shall be heard by the court without a jury in advance of any issue going to the merits of the case. If, after such a hearing on the objection, the court decides that it has jurisdiction, the case may proceed on the merits; if the court decides that it lacks jurisdiction, the defendant shall be given the relief required by such decision.
801.08(2)
(2) Factual determinations made by the court in determining the question of personal jurisdiction over the defendant shall not be binding on the parties in the trial of the action on the merits.
801.08(3)
(3) No guardian or guardian ad litem may, except as provided in this subsection, waive objection to jurisdiction over the person of the ward. If no objection to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the ward is raised pursuant to
s. 802.06 (2), the service of an answer or motion by a guardian or guardian ad litem followed by a hearing or trial shall be equivalent to an appearance and waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the ward.
801.08 History
History: Sup. Ct. Order,
67 Wis. 2d 585, 598 (1975);
1979 c. 110 s.
60 (7); Sup. Ct. Order, 101 Wis. 2d xi.
801.08 Note
Judicial Council Note, 1981: The last sentence of sub. (1) has been repealed because it erroneously implied that non-final orders deciding jurisdictional questions were appealable as of right. This has not been true since ch. 187, Laws of 1977 repealed s. 817.33 (3) (f), Wis. Stats. (1975) and created s. 808.03 (1), Wis. Stats. (1977). Heaton v. Independent Mortuary Corp.
97 Wis. 2d 379,
294 N.W.2d 15 (1980). [Re Order effective July 1, 1981]
801.08 Annotation
A jurisdiction dispute may not be resolved on motion. Merco Distributing Corp. v. O & R Engines, Inc.
71 Wis. 2d 792,
239 N.W.2d 97 (1976).
801.08 Annotation
An order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is appealable by permission under s. 808.03 (2). Heaton v. Independent Mortuary Corp.
97 Wis. 2d 379,
294 N.W.2d 15 (1980).
801.08 Annotation
An order denying a motion to dismiss based on jurisdiction under s. 801.08 (1) is not a final order and is not appealable as of right under s. 808.03 (1). Grulkowski v. DOT
97 Wis. 2d 615,
294 N.W.2d 43 (Ct. App. 1980).
801.08 Annotation
The trial court erred in denying plaintiff's request for an evidentiary hearing. The plaintiff has no burden to prove jurisdictional facts prior to a hearing. Henderson v. Milex Products, Inc.
125 Wis. 2d 141,
370 N.W.2d 291 (Ct. App. 1985).
801.08 Annotation
Conducting pretrial discovery does not constitute "going to the merits of the case" under sub. (1) and does not waive an objection raised under s. 802.06 (2). Honeycrest Farms v. Brave Harvestore Systems,
200 Wis. 2d 256,
546 N.W.2d 192 (Ct. App. 1996),
95-1789.
801.09
801.09
Summons, contents of. The summons shall contain:
801.09(1)
(1) The title of the cause, specifying the name of the court in which the action is brought, the name of the county designated by the plaintiff as the place of trial, the standardized description of the case classification type and associated code number as approved by the director of state courts and the names and addresses of the parties to the action, plaintiff and defendant.
801.09(2)
(2) A direction to the defendant summoning and requiring defendant to serve upon the plaintiff's attorney, whose address shall be stated in the summons, either an answer to the complaint if a copy of the complaint is served with the summons or a demand for a copy of the complaint. The summons shall further direct the defendant to serve the answer or demand for a copy of the complaint within the following periods:
801.09(2)(a)1.1. Except as provided in
subds. 2. and
3., within 20 days, exclusive of the day of service, after the summons has been served personally upon the defendant or served by substitution personally upon another authorized to accept service of the summons for the defendant.
801.09(2)(a)2.
2. If the defendant is the state or an officer, agent, employee, or agency of the state, as to that defendant, within 45 days, exclusive of the day of service, after the summons has been served personally upon the defendant or served by substitution personally upon another authorized to accept service of the summons for the defendant.
801.09(2)(a)3.
3. Within 45 days, exclusive of the day of service, after the summons has been served personally upon the defendant or served by substitution personally upon another authorized to accept service of the summons for the defendant, if any of the following applies:
801.09(2)(a)3.b.
b. Any cause of action raised in the complaint is founded in tort.
