Responding to a Wisconsin summons: 20 days, or 45 in a tort case

Wisconsin's general answer period is 20 days — only Indiana matches it among the states on this site, and both are well short of the 30 days used across most of the country.

But read the whole paragraph before you calendar it. Wisconsin gives 45 days where the defendant is an insurance company, or where any cause of action pleaded is founded in tort. Between them those two categories cover a great many ordinary civil cases, so the 20-day figure is the exception at least as often as it is the rule.

Wisconsin also puts its civil procedure in statutes rather than court rules, so the citations are to chapter 801 and following rather than to numbered rules.

The deadline

Wis. Stat. § 802.06(1)(a):

Except when a court dismisses an action or special proceeding under s. 802.05 (4), a defendant shall serve an answer within 20 days after the service of the complaint upon the defendant. If a guardian ad litem is appointed for a defendant, the guardian ad litem shall have 20 days after appointment to serve the answer. A party served with a pleading stating a cross claim against the party shall serve an answer thereto within 20 days after the service upon the party. The plaintiff shall serve a reply to a counterclaim in the answer within 20 days after service of the answer. The state or an agency of the state or an officer, employee, or agent of the state shall serve an answer to the complaint or to a cross claim or a reply to a counterclaim within 45 days after service of the pleading in which the claim is asserted. … If a defendant in the action is an insurance company, or if any cause of action raised in the original pleading, cross claim, or counterclaim is founded in tort, the periods of time to serve a reply or answer shall be 45 days.

Twenty days is the baseline, and it runs for the answer, the cross-claim answer and the reply alike. Three groups get 45 days instead: the state, its agencies, officers, employees and agents; a defendant that is an insurance company; and any case where a cause of action is founded in tort. That last one is keyed to the claim, not the defendant — one tort count in the pleading moves the deadline for the reply or answer.

Note the guardian ad litem provision: where one is appointed, the 20 days runs from appointment, not from service. That protects a minor or incapacitated defendant from a clock that started before anyone was in place to act.

Default: "joining issue"

Wisconsin frames default around whether issue has been joined rather than around a failure to plead.

Wis. Stat. § 806.02(1):

A default judgment may be rendered in favor of any party as provided in subs. (1) to (4) if no issue of law or fact has been joined on any claim asserted in a complaint, counterclaim, or cross claim and if the time for joining issue has expired. Any defendant appearing in an action shall be entitled to notice of motion for judgment.

Two points.

The test is whether issue has been joined. Serving an answer joins issue; so does a motion raising an issue of law. The question is not simply whether a document called an "answer" was filed.

And an appearing defendant gets notice. "Any defendant appearing in an action shall be entitled to notice of motion for judgment" — the same structure Washington and federal practice use, keyed to appearance.

§ 806.02(2) — what the plaintiff must file:

After filing the complaint … and proof of service thereof and after filing an affidavit that the party against whom judgment is sought is in default for failure to join issue, a party may move for judgment according to the demand of the complaint…

Three prerequisites: the pleading, proof of service, and an affidavit of default. A default judgment without proof of service on file is vulnerable, and that is the first thing to check.

"According to the demand of the complaint" is Wisconsin's ceiling provision — the judgment follows what was demanded, as in Federal Rule 54(c).

Twenty days is not much

Two practical consequences of the short period.

Check service immediately. Wisconsin commences actions under chapter 801, and service defects are worth identifying before the clock runs rather than after a default.

And decide fast between answering and moving. Section 802.06 carries the defences that may be raised by motion, and the same 20 days governs.

If you need more time, ask early — Wisconsin's enlargement provisions are in § 801.15, and a request made before the period expires is treated more generously than one made after.

How Wisconsin compares

A short checklist

1. Calendar 20 days from service unless a 45-day trigger applies. The short period is among the shortest in the country, and it governs cross-claim answers and replies too.
2. If a guardian ad litem was appointed, the clock runs from appointment.
3. Check for a 45-day trigger before relying on 20. The state or its officers, employees and agents get 45 days; so does an insurance company defendant; and so does any case in which a cause of action is founded in tort.
4. Join issue. An answer does it; so does a motion raising an issue of law. The default test is whether issue has been joined, not whether an answer exists.
5. Appear. An appearing defendant is entitled to notice of a motion for default judgment.
6. Ask for more time before the 20 days expires, not after.
7. If a default judgment has been taken, check the file for proof of service and the affidavit of default. Both are prerequisites.
8. Check the demand. Judgment goes according to the demand of the complaint.

Where these rules live

• Wis. Stat. § 801.02 — Commencement of action
• Wis. Stat. § 801.15 — Computation and enlargement of time
• Wis. Stat. § 802.01 — Pleadings and motions
• Wis. Stat. § 802.05 — Signing of pleadings; sanctions
• Wis. Stat. § 802.06 — Defenses and objection
• Wis. Stat. § 802.09 — Amended and supplemental pleadings
• Wis. Stat. § 806.02 — Default judgment
• Wis. Stat. § 806.07 — Relief from judgment or order

This page explains what the statutes say. It isn't legal advice, and the standard for relief from a default judgment is developed in case law this site doesn't cover.