State Codes and Statutes
Statutes > Wisconsin > 809 > 809.25809.25
809.25 Rule (Costs and fees).809.25(1)
(1) Costs.809.25(1)(a)
(a) Costs in a civil appeal are allowed as follows unless otherwise ordered by the court:809.25(1)(a)1.
1. Against the appellant before the court of appeals when the appeal is dismissed or the judgment or order affirmed.809.25(1)(a)2.
2. Against the respondent before the court of appeals when the judgment or order is reversed.809.25(1)(a)3.
3. Against the petitioner before the supreme court when the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed by the supreme court.809.25(1)(a)4.
4. Against the respondent before the supreme court when the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed by the supreme court and the costs in the court of appeals are canceled and may be taxed by the supreme court as costs against another party.809.25(1)(a)5.
5. In all other cases as allowed by the court.809.25(1)(b)
(b) Allowable costs include:809.25(1)(b)1.
1. Cost of printing and assembling the number of copies and briefs and appendices required by the rules, not to exceed the rates generally charged in Dane County, Wisconsin, for offset printing of camera-ready copy and assembling;809.25(1)(b)2.
2. Fees charged by the clerk of the court;809.25(1)(b)3.
3. Cost of the preparation of the transcript of testimony or for appeal bonds;809.25(1)(b)4.
4. Fees of the clerk of the trial court for preparation of the record on appeal;809.25(1)(b)5.
5. Other costs as directed by the court.809.25(1)(c)
(c) A party seeking to recover costs in the court shall file a statement of the costs within 14 days of the filing of the decision of the court. An opposing party may file, within 11 days after service of the statement, a motion objecting to the statement of costs.809.25(1)(d)
(d) Costs allowed by the court are taxed by the clerk of the court of appeals irrespective of the filing by a party of a petition for review in the supreme court. In the event of review by the supreme court, costs are taxed by the clerk of the supreme court as set forth in pars. (a) and (b). The clerk of the supreme court shall include in the remittitur the costs allowed in the court. The clerk of circuit court shall enter the judgment for costs in accordance with s. 806.16.809.25(2)
(2) Fees.809.25(2)(a)
(a) The clerk of the court shall charge the following fees:809.25(2)(a)1.
1. For filing an appeal, cross-appeal, petition for review, petition to bypass, or other proceeding, $195.809.25(2)(a)2.
2. For making a copy of a record, paper, or opinion of the court and comparing it to the original, 40 cents for each page.809.25(2)(a)3.
3. For comparing for certification of a copy of a record, entry or paper, when the copy is furnished by the person requesting its certification, 25 cents for each page.809.25(2)(a)4.
4. For a certificate and seal, $1, except for an attorney's certificate of good standing, $3.809.25(2)(b)
(b) The state is exempt from payment of the fees set forth in par. (a) 1. to 4., except that the clerk is not obligated to supply the state with free copies of opinions.809.25(2)(c)
(c) The clerk of the court of appeals may refuse to file, record, certify, or render any other service without prepayment of the fees established by this section.809.25(3)
(3) Frivolous appeals.809.25(3)(a)
(a) If an appeal or cross-appeal is found to be frivolous by the court, the court shall award to the successful party costs, fees, and reasonable attorney fees under this section. A motion for costs, fees, and attorney fees under this subsection shall be filed no later than the filing of the respondent's brief or, if a cross-appeal is filed, no later than the filing of the cross-respondent's brief. This subsection does not apply to appeals or cross-appeals under s. 809.107, 809.30, or 974.05.809.25(3)(b)
(b) The costs, fees and attorney fees awarded under par. (a) may be assessed fully against the appellant or cross-appellant or the attorney representing the appellant or cross-appellant or may be assessed so that the appellant or cross-appellant and the attorney each pay a portion of the costs, fees and attorney fees.809.25(3)(c)
(c) In order to find an appeal or cross-appeal to be frivolous under par. (a), the court must find one or more of the following:809.25(3)(c)1.
1. The appeal or cross-appeal was filed, used or continued in bad faith, solely for purposes of harassing or maliciously injuring another.809.25(3)(c)2.
2. The party or the party's attorney knew, or should have known, that the appeal or cross-appeal was without any reasonable basis in law or equity and could not be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.809.25 - ANNOT.
History: Sup. Ct. Order, 83 Wis. 2d xiii (1978); Sup. Ct. Order, 92 Wis. 2d xiii (1979); Sup. Ct. Order, 104 Wis. 2d xi (1981); 1981 c. 316, 317; 1981 c. 390 ss. 220, 252; 1985 a. 29; Sup. Ct. Order, 151 Wis. 2d xvii (1989); 1995 a. 224; 1997 a. 254; 1999 a. 85; Sup. Ct. Order No. 00-02, 2001 WI 39, 242 Wis. 2d xxvii; 2003 a. 33.809.25 - ANNOT.
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1978: Most of the provisions of former ss. 251.23 and 251.90 are retained. The major change is to provide that execution for costs in the Court of Appeals is to be had in the trial court in accordance with Rule 806.16 rather than in the Court of Appeals. The Judicial Council did not review the adequacy of the fees and thus made no recommendations on them. It is suggested, however, that many of the fees appear to be out of date and should be revised. This should be done in connection with a general review of fees in all courts. [Re Order effective July 1, 1978]809.25 - ANNOT.
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1979: Sub. (1) (a) and (d), which governs costs that are allowed in an appeal to the Court of Appeals or a review by the Supreme Court, have been amended for purposes of clarification.809.25 - ANNOT.
A provision has been added to clarify that costs are taxed by the clerk in the Court of Appeals irrespective of the filing of a petition for review in the Supreme Court. In the event of review by the Supreme Court, a provision has been added specifically stating that costs are allowed against a petitioner in a case before the Supreme Court when the decision of that court affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals.809.25 - ANNOT.
An additional clarifying provision has been added allowing costs against a respondent in a case before the Supreme Court when the petitioner before the Supreme Court has achieved reversal of a judgment of the Court of Appeals. The provision further states that the costs that were allowed when the case was originally decided by the Court of Appeals are canceled. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1980]809.25 - ANNOT.
Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1981: Sub. (2) (a) 1. is amended to correct the reference from a petition to appeal to a petition for review. The supreme court reviews the decisions of the court of appeals. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1982]809.25 - ANNOT.
Judicial Council Note, 2001: The 7-day time limit in sub. (1) (c) was changed to 11 days. Please see the comment to s. 808.07 (6) concerning time limits. [Re Order No. 00-02 effective July 1, 2001]809.25 - ANNOT.
An appeal was frivolous when an assertion of trial court error was without any reasonable basis in law or equity and there was no argument that existing law should have been extended, modified, or reversed. In Matter of Estate of Koenigsmark, 119 Wis. 2d 394, 351 N.W.2d 169 (Ct. App. 1984).809.25 - ANNOT.
Tax protesters appealing without counsel were properly assessed costs under sub. (3) (c) 2. Tracy v. Department of Revenue, 133 Wis. 2d 151, 394 N.W.2d 756 (Ct. App. 1986).809.25 - ANNOT.
Restricting access to courts as a sanction for a frivolous action was appropriate when the order was narrowly tailored to balance the interests of public access to courts, res judicata, and the public's right not to have frivolous litigation be a drain on public resources. Minniecheske v. Griesbach, 161 Wis. 2d 743, 468 N.W.2d 760 (Ct. App. 1991).809.25 - ANNOT.
Asking the court of appeals to reweigh the testimony of witnesses and to reach a conclusion regarding credibility contrary to that reached by a trial judge was frivolous. Lessor v. Wangelin, 221 Wis. 2d 659, 586 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-2974.809.25 - ANNOT.
A frivolous appeal filed by a non-lawyer results in the same harm as if it were filed by a lawyer. It would not be fair or logical to say that had a lawyer filed the appeal costs would have been awarded but to deny recovery because the appeal was presented by a pro se litigant. Holz v. Busy Bees Contracting, Inc. 223 Wis. 2d 598, 589 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1998), 98-1076.809.25 - ANNOT.
While only an appellate court can find an appeal frivolous, the case may be remanded to the circuit court to determine the amount of attorney fees to be awarded. Lucarelli v. Vilas County, 2000 WI App 157, 238 Wis. 2d 84, 616 N.W.2d 153, 99-2827.809.25 - ANNOT.
In addition to an order to pay the respondent's costs, fees, and attorney fees, an appellant whose appeal was found frivolous after his brief was stricken for being offensive, scurrilous, and inappropriate was barred from filing any future proceedings in the court of appeals and the circuit court arising from, relating to, or involving the respondents. Puchner v. Hepperla, 2001 WI App 50, 241 Wis. 2d 545, 625 N.W.2d 609, 98-2853.809.25 - ANNOT.
The circuit court's award of fees to the respondent due to the appellant's overlitigating by filing multiple frivolous issues on appeal, in violation of the circuit court's order, was not prevented by a court of appeals finding that no fees could be awarded under sub. (3). Zhang v. Yu, 2001 WI App 267, 248 Wis. 2d 913, 637 N.W.2d 754, 00-3237.809.25 - ANNOT.
In order to be awarded costs, fees, and reasonable attorney fees, the moving party must prove that the entire appeal presented was frivolous. If an argument advanced has arguable merit, then the appeal is not frivolous. Baumeister v. Automated Products, Inc. 2004 WI 148, 277 Wis. 2d 21, 690 N.W.2d 1, 02-1003809.25 - ANNOT.
The trial court is without authority to order the payment of frivolous costs and fees associated with an appeal. Morters v. Aiken & Scoptur, 2006 WI App 46, 289 Wis. 2d 833, 712 N.W.2d 71, 05-0703.