801.05(7)(b)
(b) Following sale of real property in this state by the plaintiff under
ch. 846; or
801.05(7)(c)
(c) Following resale of tangible property in this state by the plaintiff under
ch. 409.
801.05(8)
(8) Director, officer or manager of a domestic corporation or limited liability company. In any action against a defendant who is or was an officer, director or manager of a domestic corporation or domestic limited liability company where the action arises out of the defendant's conduct as such officer, director or manager or out of the activities of such corporation or limited liability company while the defendant held office as a director, officer or manager.
801.05(9)
(9) Taxes or assessments. In any action for the collection of taxes or assessments levied, assessed or otherwise imposed by a taxing authority of this state after July 1, 1960.
801.05(10)
(10) Insurance or insurers. In any action which arises out of a promise made anywhere to the plaintiff or some 3rd party by the defendant to insure upon or against the happening of an event and in addition either:
801.05(10)(a)
(a) The person insured was a resident of this state when the event out of which the cause of action is claimed to arise occurred; or
801.05(10)(b)
(b) The event out of which the cause of action is claimed to arise occurred within this state, regardless of where the person insured resided.
801.05(11)
(11) Certain marital actions. In addition to personal jurisdiction under
sub. (1) and
s. 801.06, in any action affecting the family, except for actions under
ch. 769, in which a personal claim is asserted against the respondent commenced in the county in which the petitioner resides at the commencement of the action when the respondent resided in this state in marital relationship with the petitioner for not less than 6 consecutive months within the 6 years next preceding the commencement of the action and the respondent is served personally under
s. 801.11. The effect of any determination of a child's custody shall not be binding personally against any parent or guardian unless the parent or guardian has been made personally subject to the jurisdiction of the court in the action as provided under this chapter or has been notified under
s. 822.05 as provided in
s. 822.12.
801.05(12)
(12) Personal representative. In any action against a personal representative to enforce a claim against the deceased person represented where one or more of the grounds stated in
subs. (2) to
(11) would have furnished a basis for jurisdiction over the deceased had the deceased been living and it is immaterial under this subsection whether the action had been commenced during the lifetime of the deceased.
801.05(13)
(13) Joinder of claims in the same action. In any action brought in reliance upon jurisdictional grounds stated in
subs. (2) to
(11) there cannot be joined in the same action any other claim or cause against the defendant unless grounds exist under this section for personal jurisdiction over the defendant as to the claim or cause to be joined.
801.05 Annotation
Jurisdiction over a foreign executor under sub. (12) cannot be based on substantial activities in Wisconsin under sub. (1) (d). Rauser v. Rauser,
47 Wis. 2d 295,
177 N.W.2d 115.
801.05 Annotation
In an action against an Illinois corporate defendant and its officer alleging fraudulent advertising, the trial court possessed jurisdiction over the officer where the answer to the complaint admitted corporate advertising in newspapers circulated in Wisconsin, the contacting of Wisconsin residents responding to the advertisements, and the taking of earnest money deposits, and where testimony indicated that defendant had participated in one such transaction in the state. State v. Advance Marketing Consultants, Inc.
66 Wis. 2d 706,
225 N.W.2d 887.
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.
801.05 Annotation
The trial court was entitled to consider the complaint and answer in determining whether the court had jurisdiction. Merco Distrib. Corp. v. O & R Engines, Inc.
71 Wis. 2d 792,
239 N.W.2d 97.
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.
801.05 Annotation
Findings of the facts requisite to 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.
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 three independent sources of personal jurisdiction that must be considered in the disjunctive. In re Marriage of 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 activates 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.
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
Where 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
Where 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 where agents of the corporation made 2 visits to the state in connection with business on which the claim was based. Wisconsin Elec. Mfg. 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 sale of a boat did not exist where 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.
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.
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, etc. v. Hudson Eng. Corp.
361 F. Supp. 903.
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.
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, where no attempt was made to comply with s. 345.09. Chilcote v. Shertzer,
372 F. Supp. 86.
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.
801.05 Annotation
Court had in-personam jurisdiction by virtue of sub. (5) (b) and (e) where 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.
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.
801.05 Annotation
Actions of out-of-state police officials in continuously soliciting the plaintiff's arrest by means of a "fugitive from justice notice" entered into the FBI National Crime Information Center computer data bank, in representing to Wisconsin authorities that extradition was desired and requesting that the plaintiff be arrested constituted sufficient minimum contact with Wisconsin to permit th exercise of personal jurisdiction. Maney v. Ratcliff,
399 F. Supp. 760.
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 deliver y 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
A contract for services distinguished from contract for goods. 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
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.
801.06
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. 767.02 (1) (a) to
(d) and when the residence requirements of
s. 767.05 (1m) 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).
801.07 History
History: Sup. Ct. Order,
67 Wis. 2d 585, 597 (1975), 758;
1977 c. 418;
1979 c. 32 s.
92 (4);
1979 c. 352 s.
39;
1993 a. 213.
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 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).
801.07 Annotation
The minimum contacts standard for quasi in rem jurisdiction is discussed. Shaffer v. Heitner,
433 U.S. 186.
801.07 Annotation
Posting notice of eviction on 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 Distrib. Corp. v. O & R Engines, Inc.
71 Wis. 2d 792,
239 N.W.2d 97.
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 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 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).
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:
801.09(2)(a)
(a) 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; or
801.09(2)(b)
(b) Within 45 days after a date stated in the summons, exclusive of such date, if no such personal or substituted personal service has been made, and service is made by publication. The date so stated in the summons shall be the date of the first required publication.
801.09(3)
(3) A notice that in case of failure to serve an answer or demand for a copy of the complaint within the time fixed by
sub. (2), judgment will be rendered against the defendant according to the demand of the complaint. The summons shall be subscribed with the handwritten signature of the plaintiff or attorney with the addition of the post-office address at which papers in the action may be served on the plaintiff by mail, plaintiff's or attorney's telephone number, and, if by an attorney, the attorney's state bar number, if any. If the plaintiff is represented by a law firm, the summons shall contain the name and address of the firm and shall be subscribed with the handwritten signature and state bar number, if any, of one attorney who is a member or associate of such firm. When the complaint is not served with the summons and the only relief sought is the recovery of money, whether upon tort or contract, there may, at the option of the plaintiff, be added at the foot a brief note specifying the sum to be demanded by the complaint.
801.09(4)
(4) There may be as many authenticated copies of the summons and the complaint issued to the plaintiff or counsel as are needed for the purpose of effecting service on the defendant. Authentication shall be accomplished by the clerk's placing a filing stamp indicating the case number on each copy of the summons and the complaint.
801.09 History
History: Sup. Ct. Order,
67 Wis. 2d 585, 598 (1975); Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d viii;
1975 c. 218; Sup. Ct. Order, 112 Wis. 2d xi; Sup. Ct. Order, 171 Wis. 2d xxv;
1993 a. 365,
486;
1997 a. 133,
187.
801.09 Cross-reference
Cross-reference: See s.
802.06 (1) for provision giving the state 45 days to serve an answer.
801.09 Note
Judicial Council Note, 1983: Sub. (2) (a) is amended by applying the extended response time for state officers and agencies to state agents and employees as well. The extended time is intended to allow investigation of the claim by the department of justice to determine whether representation of the defendant by the department is warranted under s. 893.82 or 895.46, Stats. [Re Order effective July 1, 1983]
801.09 Annotation
Where a defective summons does not prejudice the defendant, non-compliance with s. 801.09 (2) (a) is not jurisdictional error. Canadian Pac. Ltd. v. Omark-Prentice Hydraulics,
86 Wis. 2d 369,
272 N.W.2d 407 (Ct. App. 1978).
801.09 Annotation
Failure to name a party in the summons means that the court has no authority over that party regarding the case. Prejudice need not be shown. Bulik v. Arrow Realty, Inc.,
148 Wis. 2d 441,
434 N.W.2d 853 (Ct. App. 1988).
