806.01 Judgment.

(1)

(a) A judgment is the determination of the action. It may be final or interlocutory.

(b) Each judgment shall specify the relief granted or other determination of the action, and the name and place of residence of each party to the action.

(c) Every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded the relief in the pleadings. If there be no answer the relief granted to the plaintiff shall not exceed that demanded in the complaint. If the amount of money sought was excluded from the demand for judgment, as required under s. 802.02 (1m), the court shall require the plaintiff to specify the amount of money claimed and provide that information to the court and to the other parties prior to the court rendering judgment.

(2) If a partial judgment is proper in an action with several parties, the court in its discretion, may render judgment against one or more of the defendants and dismiss or permit the action to proceed against the others. In case of a finding substantially disposing of a claim on its merits, but leaving an account to be taken or a condition to be performed in order fully to determine the rights of the parties, an interlocutory judgment may be rendered disposing of all issues covered by the finding and reserving final judgment.

History: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 715 (1975); 1975 c. 218; 1985 a. 145; 1987 a. 256.

An order filed after verdict that gave the plaintiff the option of accepting a reduced judgment or a new trial limited to the issue of damages was not a “judgment" under this section. Collins v. Gee, 82 Wis. 2d 376, 263 N.W.2d 158 (1978).

Only the damages demanded may be awarded in a default judgment. Because the complaint did not contain a specific damage claim in accordance with s. 802.02 (1m), the plaintiff's failure to serve an affidavit setting forth the amount of its claimed damages was grounds for reversing a default judgment. Stein v. Illinois State Assistance Commission, 194 Wis. 2d 775, 535 N.W.2d 101 (Ct. App. 1995).

While a written judgment clear on its face is not open to construction, the trial court has the authority to construe an ambiguous judgment to effectuate the trial court's objective. A clarification is not a modification or amendment of the judgment. Because the judge who drafted the ambiguous language has a superior practical knowledge of its meaning, when the judge resolves an ambiguity based on his or her experience of the trial and uses a reasonable rationale, an appellate court is to affirm the clarification. Cashin v. Cashin, 2004 WI App 92, 273 Wis. 2d 754, 681 N.W.2d 255, 03-1010.

Use of a legal term of art is not necessary to incorporate documents. Documents may be incorporated in an order or other legal document without being physically attached to the document. Carney v. CNH Health & Welfare Plan, 2007 WI App 205, 305 Wis. 2d 443, 740 N.W.2d 625, 06-1529.

There need not be a specific injunction against the particular action to apply contempt sanctions to an order. An order or judgment that requires specific conduct, either to do, or to refrain from, specific actions, can be enforced by contempt. Neither s. 785.01 (1) nor case law requires that an order contain the specific term “enjoin" or “injunction" to allow the court to use contempt powers to enforce its orders, nor is the possibility of a separate civil action a bar to use of contempt to enforce a court order. Carney v. CNH Health & Welfare Plan, 2007 WI App 205, 305 Wis. 2d 443, 740 N.W.2d 625, 06-1529.

A party to a judgment is obligated to follow the court's judgment unless it is modified in a proceeding in the circuit court or on appeal. A judgment imposes a legal obligation, and violating it can subject an individual to contempt proceedings. This is true even if the judgment was entered in error, unless the court lacked jurisdiction to impose the judgment. Tensfeldt v. Haberman, 2009 WI 77, 319 Wis. 2d 329, 768 N.W.2d 641, 07-1638.

An otherwise valid judgment can be enforced against a legal entity when the judgment is entered against the name under which the legal entity does business. If the name under which a person or corporation does business is “simply another way to refer to" a single legal entity and constitutes no entity distinct from the person or corporation who does business, then a judgment against the “doing business as" name is enforceable against the legal entity from which it is indistinct. Paul Davis Restoration of S.E. Wisconsin, Inc. v. Paul Davis Restoration of Northeast Wisconsin, 2013 WI 49, 347 Wis. 2d 614, 831 N.W.2d 413, 11-1121.

The new Wisconsin rules of civil procedure: Chapters 805-807. Graczyk, 59 MLR 671.