846.01 Foreclosure judgment.

(1) Except as provided in sub. (2), in actions for the foreclosure of mortgages upon real estate, if the plaintiff recover, the court shall render judgment of foreclosure and sale, as provided in this chapter, of the mortgaged premises or so much of the premises as may be sufficient to pay the amount adjudged to be due upon the mortgage and obligation secured by the mortgage, with costs.

(2) A judgment of foreclosure and sale shall not be entered until 20 days after the lis pendens has been filed.

History: 1973 c. 189 s. 7; Stats. 1973 s. 816.01; Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 768 (1975); Stats. 1975 s. 846.01; 1997 a. 254.

Cross-reference: See s. 840.10 as to requirement of filing of lis pendens.

The defense of laches, consisting of unreasonable delay by the mortgagee in commencing the action, its actual or constructive knowledge of the transfer and acquiescence therein, and prejudice to the mortgagor asserting the defense, is in itself a sufficient basis that it would be inequitable under the circumstances to decree foreclosure. Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Assoc. v. American Medical Services, 66 Wis. 2d 210, 223 N.W.2d 921 (1974).

The trial court could enter judgment against a codefendant who received an excess payment of sheriff sale proceeds from another defendant. The trial court's authority in a foreclosure action is equitable in nature and not limited to that expressly granted by statute. The court's discretion extends even after confirmation of sale, if necessary to provide that no injustice be done to any of the parties. Harvest State Bank v. ROI Investments, 228 Wis. 2d 733, 598 N.W.2d 571 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2320.

In accordance with this section and the court's equitable powers, the circuit court order “forever barred and foreclosed of all right, title, interest, lien or equity of redemption in and to said mortgaged premises." A condominium association policy could not survive a foreclosure action to the extent it restricts a current owner's use of condominium facilities based on the failure of the prior owners to pay their debts. Such a policy ties the debts of the prior owners to the units, in violation of well-established foreclosure. Walworth State Bank v. Abbey Springs Condominium Association, Inc. 2016 WI 30, 368 Wis. 2d 72, 878 N.W.2d 170, 14-0940.

When a lender does not validly accelerate payment of the amount due under a note and a foreclosure action brought on the borrower's default on an installment payment under the note has been dismissed with prejudice, claim preclusion does not bar the lender from bringing a subsequent foreclosure action based upon the borrower's continuing default on the same note. Federal National Mortgage Association v. Thompson, 2018 WI 57, 381 Wis. 2d 609, 912 N.W.2d 364, 16-1496.

Mortgage foreclosure as fraudulent conveyance: Is judicial foreclosure an answer to the Durrett problem? 1984 WLR 195.

Advising Clients Facing Foreclosure. Cummisford. Wis. Law. Dec. 2007.

Beyond Robo-signing: Mortgage Foreclosure Defense Basics. Nora. Wis. Law. April 2011.