COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

February 10, 2022

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 

and RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2021AP857 Cir. Ct. No. 2019CV3189

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT IV

DONALD E. CARROLL,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-CROSS-RESPONDENT,

 V.

SARKO ENGINEERING INC. AND ROLAND F. SARKO,

 DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-CROSS-APPELLANTS.

APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court 

for Dane County: DAVID CONWAY, Judge. Affirmed and cause remanded with 

directions.

Before Kloppenburg, Fitzpatrick, and Graham, JJ.

¶1 KLOPPENBURG, J. This case concerns four unsatisfied judgments

entered in 1999 and 2000 against Sarko Engineering, Inc. and Roland Sarko 

(collectively, “Sarko”); two of the judgments were obtained by Donald Carroll and 
No. 2021AP857

2

two were obtained by a third party and subsequently assigned to Carroll. Shortly 

before expiration of the applicable twenty-year statute of limitations, Carroll filed 

this action to collect on the four unsatisfied judgments.1

¶2 The circuit court dismissed Carroll’s claims on the two judgments 

assigned to Carroll (referred to in this opinion as “the assigned judgments”). The 

basis for dismissal was that Carroll had failed to petition for and obtain leave of 

the court in the original actions in which those judgments had been rendered to file 

this new action, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 806.23.2 Carroll appeals, appearing pro 

se and arguing that the leave requirement in § 806.23 does not apply to judgment 

assignees and that controlling case law to the contrary should be “overturned.”

¶3 The circuit court also granted Carroll’s motion for summary 

judgment as to Carroll’s claims on the two judgments originally held by Carroll,

for which Carroll had obtained leave in the original actions in which those 

judgments had been rendered, consistent with WIS. STAT. § 806.23 (referred to in 

this opinion as “the 2000 judgments”). Sarko cross-appeals, arguing that the 

circuit court lacked “competency” because Sarko’s due process rights were 

violated when, according to Sarko, Carroll failed to provide proper notice in his 

petitions for leave as to the 2000 judgments under § 806.23, rendering the leave 

 

1

 Under WIS. STAT. § 893.40 (2019-20), a party must commence a collection action on 

an unsatisfied judgment within twenty years after the judgment is rendered or else the action is 

barred. See also WIS. STAT. § 815.04(1)(c) (providing that no “proceedings [shall] be 

commenced upon any judgment after 20 years from the rendition of the judgment”).

All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise 

noted.

2

 WISCONSIN STAT. § 806.23 provides, “No action shall be brought upon a judgment 

rendered in any court of this state between the same parties, without leave of the court, for good 

cause shown, on notice to the adverse party.”
No. 2021AP857

3

that he obtained to file this action “void.” Sarko also argues that the court erred by 

granting in the new judgment (referred to in this opinion as “the 2021 judgment”)

interest on the post-judgment interest that had accrued in the twenty years since 

entry of the unsatisfied 2000 judgments.

¶4 As to Carroll’s appeal, we conclude that the circuit court properly 

dismissed the claims on the assigned judgments based on Carroll’s failure to 

comply with WIS. STAT. § 806.23. Under controlling case law, that statute applies 

to judgment assignees in the same way that it applies to the original judgment 

holders, as Carroll concedes, and we lack the power to overrule that case law, as 

Carroll requests.

¶5 As to Sarko’s cross-appeal, we reject Sarko’s due process argument, 

which is directed at the petitions for leave that were decided by a court 

commissioner in the original actions in which the judgments had been rendered. 

Properly construed, it is a challenge to the court commissioner’s orders granting 

Carroll’s asserted deficient petitions. The court commissioner rendered those 

orders in the cases in which the 2000 judgments were entered, and Sarko cannot 

challenge those orders in this new action because Sarko did not seek de novo 

review of those orders in the circuit court under WIS. STAT. § 799.207(2)(b). 

Finally, we conclude that the circuit court did not err by granting in the 2021 

judgment interest on the accrued post-judgment interest on the 2000 judgments. 

Accordingly, we affirm3.

 

3

 We also remand with directions for the circuit court to make a small adjustment to the 

calculation of the 2021 judgment, unrelated to the inclusion of the accrued post-judgment interest, 

as set forth at the end of this opinion.
No. 2021AP857

4

BACKGROUND

¶6 The following facts, which are pertinent to and provide context for 

the three issues on appeal, are undisputed.

¶7 On September 27, 2019, Carroll personally served Sarko with two 

petitions for leave to bring an action to collect on both of the 2000 judgments, 

which, to repeat, are two unsatisfied judgments that had been entered in favor of

Carroll and against Sarko. One judgment was entered in April 2000 for $5,159, 

and the other judgment was entered in June 2000 for $4,914.31.

¶8 On October 16, 2019, Carroll filed the petitions in the small claims 

court that had rendered the 2000 judgments, and the court commissioner granted 

the petitions for leave as to the 2000 judgments on October 23, 2019. The 

petitions were filed, and the orders were entered, in the original 1999 and 2000 

cases in which the 2000 judgments had been rendered.

¶9 On November 18, 2019, Carroll filed a summons and complaint 

against Sarko seeking to collect on the unsatisfied 2000 judgments for which he 

had obtained leave. The complaint also sought to collect on two additional 

unsatisfied judgments against Sarko that had been entered in favor of a third party

on November 19, 1999, and in March 2000. The third party assigned both of those 

judgments to Carroll in December 2006.

¶10 Sarko moved to dismiss the claims on the two assigned judgments 

based on Carroll’s failure to obtain leave under WIS. STAT. § 806.23 and because 

“it [was] too late [then] to attempt to obtain leave” given that the applicable statute 

of limitations had expired as to those claims. Carroll conceded that he had not 

obtained leave as to those two judgments and that, under controlling case law, he 
No. 2021AP857

5

was required to do so. However, he argued that the case law was wrongly 

decided. The circuit court granted Sarko’s motion to dismiss in a written decision 

and order.

¶11 Carroll moved for summary judgment on the claims on the 2000

judgments originally held by him.4 Sarko opposed the motion, arguing in 

pertinent part that (1) Carroll had violated Sarko’s due process rights by failing to 

provide notice of the opportunity to contest the petitions in his petitions for leave 

in the original actions, and (2) the twenty years of post-judgment interest accrued 

on the 2000 judgments should not be included in the principal amount of any new 

judgment in this action. Carroll subsequently filed a notice of hearing on his 

petitions for leave to bring this action on the 2000 judgments. Pursuant to a 

briefing schedule set by the circuit court, Carroll filed a brief in support of his 

petitions and Sarko filed a brief opposing the petitions.

¶12 The circuit court held a joint hearing, starting with a “hearing on

whether good cause existed” to support Carroll’s petitions under WIS. STAT.

§ 806.23, and continuing with a hearing at which it heard oral argument on 

Carroll’s motion for summary judgment. After the joint hearing, the court issued a 

comprehensive written decision and order concluding that: (1) Carroll had 

provided proper notice when he served, filed, and obtained orders granting the 

petitions for leave; (2) “as an aside, [] ‘good cause’ clearly existed under WIS.

STAT. § 806.23 for allowing [Carroll] leave to file this collection action”; and 

 

4

 Carroll also moved for summary judgment on the claims on the two assigned 

judgments. The circuit court did not address that part of Carroll’s motion in light of its having 

granted Sarko’s motion to dismiss those claims for Carroll’s failure to obtain leave under WIS.

STAT. § 806.23.
No. 2021AP857

6

(3) Carroll was entitled to summary judgment on the 2000 judgments in the 

amount of the sum of the total of each judgment plus twenty years of “accrued 

post-judgment simple interest.” The court entered judgment consistent with that 

decision and order.

¶13 Carroll’s appeal and Sarko’s cross-appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

¶14 The parties challenge various aspects of the circuit court’s decisions 

in this collection action on unsatisfied judgments entered in 1999 and 2000. 

Carroll argues on appeal that the circuit court erred in granting Sarko’s motion to 

dismiss the claims on the two judgments assigned to him. Sarko argues on crossappeal that the circuit court erred in granting Carroll’s motion for summary 

judgment on the claims on the two 2000 judgments originally held by Carroll. 

Before proceeding, we briefly summarize the legal context that underlies the

parties’ challenges.

¶15 A judgment creditor must commence a collection action on a 

judgment within twenty years after the judgment is entered or else the action is 

barred. WIS. STAT. § 893.40. However, a judgment creditor may “revive [an] 

expired or expiring judgment[]” and “obtain a new, enforceable judgment” by 

filing an action on the judgment. Chase Lumber & Fuel Co., Inc. v Chase, 228 

Wis. 2d 179, 201-02, 596 N.W.2d 840 (Ct. App. 1999). Before filing such an 

action, the judgment creditor must first obtain from the court that “rendered” the 

judgment “leave of the court [to file an action on the judgment], for good cause 

shown, on notice to the adverse party.” WIS. STAT. § 806.23. “The decision 

whether to grant a motion for leave to act on a judgment is discretionary with the 
No. 2021AP857

7

trial court and reversible only for an [erroneous exercise] of discretion.” 

Anderson v. Kojo, 110 Wis. 2d 22, 28, 327 N.W.2d 195 (Ct. App. 1982).

¶16 A judgment creditor “can meet the ‘good cause’ requirement by 

showing that an action on the judgment is necessary to enforce his or her rights.” 

Id. at 25 (citing First Wisconsin Nat’l Bank v Rische, 15 Wis. 2d 564, 568, 113 

N.W.2d 416 (1962)). The court in Anderson gave the following examples of 

when such a showing is made:

In Rische, the supreme court has held that a plaintiff had

met the good cause requirement by showing that the 

twenty-year statute of limitations on the judgment was 

about to expire and that plaintiff would thereafter be barred 

from issuing execution or obtaining leave to action on the 

judgment. [Rische, 15 Wis. 2d at 568.] In Meier v. 

Purdun, 70 Wis. 2d 1100, 1106, 236 N.W.2d 262, 265 

(1975), the court held that the plaintiff had met the good 

cause requirement by showing that the ten-year judgment 

lien period provided by sec. 270.79 (1971), had expired, so 

that the action was necessary to enforce the plaintiff’s lien.

Anderson, 110 Wis. 2d at 25. In Anderson, this court ruled that the plaintiff 

established good cause—that an action on the judgment was necessary to preserve 

the plaintiff’s rights to enforce the judgment—by showing that “[t]he five-year 

period within which [the] plaintiff could have issued execution without leave of 

court has expired [and the] ten-year judgment lien period has also expired.” Id.

5

 

5

 Here, it is undisputed that Carroll filed this action to collect on the unsatisfied 

judgments “because the enforceability of these judgments would soon be barred because of the 

statute of limitations pertaining to judgments.” Sarko acknowledged in oral argument in the 

circuit court that it is undisputed that when Carroll sought leave and then filed this action, the 

statute of limitations was due to expire on the judgments within “a year,” and that the case law 

cited in the text holds that a plaintiff whose judgment is about to expire satisfies the good-cause 

requirement of WIS. STAT. § 806.23. The parties do not in this court raise any issue as to whether 

Carroll satisfied the good-cause requirement.
No. 2021AP857

8

¶17 We now consider the appeal and cross-appeal in turn.

I. CARROLL’S APPEAL: DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS ON JUDGMENTS 

ASSIGNED TO CARROLL

¶18 The standard of review of a motion to dismiss is well established:

A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of 

the complaint. Upon a motion to dismiss, we accept as true 

all facts well-pleaded in the complaint and the reasonable 

inferences therefrom. However, a court cannot add facts in 

the process of construing a complaint. Moreover, legal 

conclusions asserted in a complaint are not accepted, and 

legal conclusions are insufficient to withstand a motion to 

dismiss. Therefore, our focus is on factual allegations 

made in the complaint. We determine whether the facts 

alleged state a claim for relief, which is a legal question 

that we review independently.

Townsend v. ChartSwap, 2021 WI 86, ¶10, 399 Wis. 2d 599, 967 N.W.2d 21 

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

¶19 Here, the circuit court granted Sarko’s motion to dismiss the claims 

on the two judgments assigned to Carroll because Carroll failed to obtain leave to 

file an action on those judgments as required by WIS. STAT. § 806.23. Carroll did 

not allege that he obtained leave to file this action on the assigned judgments, and 

he concedes on appeal, as he did in the circuit court, that he did not obtain leave to 

file this action on the assigned judgments. Carroll argues on appeal, as he did in 

the circuit court, that he was not required to do so because the leave requirement in 

§ 806.23 applies only where the action on judgment involves the same parties as 

the case in which the original judgment was rendered. According to Carroll, the 

statute does not apply to the claims on the judgments that were subsequently 

assigned to him because he was not a party to the original judgment actions.
No. 2021AP857

9

¶20 WISCONSIN STAT. § 806.23 states: “No action shall be brought upon 

a judgment rendered in any court of this state between the same parties, without 

leave of the court, for good cause shown, on notice to the adverse party.” As the 

circuit court stated, the issue on the motion to dismiss “is whether [Carroll], a 

judgment assignee, is considered the same party as the judgment assignor for 

purposes of triggering the conditions precedent to a collection action under WIS.

STAT. § 806.23.” Carroll concedes on appeal, as he did in the circuit court, that 

our supreme court has answered this question in the affirmative. In Gould v. 

Jackson, 257 Wis. 110, 42 N.W.2d 489 (1950), the court held that the statute that 

is now codified as WIS. STAT. § 806.23 applies to judgment assignees: “the phrase 

‘between the same parties’ ... was meant to include the assignee who stands in the 

shoes of his assignor[, and] as the original judgment creditor could not bring his 

action without leave of court neither can his assignee.” Id. at 114-15. The court 

concluded:

[T]he legislature intended no diminution of a judgment 

debtor’s protection because the action against him is 

brought by a second or subsequent owner of the judgment 

rather than the first. The assignee, therefore, must comply 

with the requirements to which the assignor was subject 

and, if he does not, the consequences of the omission are 

the same for the assignee as they would have been in the 

case of the assignor.

Id. at 115.

¶21 Carroll argues that we should overturn the decision in Gould

because it is “based upon an incomplete historical examination, an application of 

the law to a situation that was illegal at the time of the passage of the original 

statute, a comparison of actionable claims which are clearly distinguishable, and a 

result which nullifies the purpose of the statute.” However, we are bound by the 

decision and lack authority to overrule it. See Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 
No. 2021AP857

10

189, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997) (“The supreme court is the only state court with the 

power to overrule, modify or withdraw language from a previous supreme court 

case.”).

¶22 In sum, we conclude that the circuit court properly dismissed the 

claims on the judgments that were assigned to Carroll.

II. SARKO’S CROSS-APPEAL: SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 2000 

JUDGMENTS ORIGINALLY HELD BY CARROLL

¶23 We review summary judgment de novo, construing the facts and 

reasonable inferences from those facts in the nonmoving party’s favor. Strozinsky 

v. School Dist. of Brown Deer, 2000 WI 97, ¶32, 237 Wis. 2d 19, 614 N.W.2d 

443. Summary judgment is granted if there are no genuine issues of material fact 

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. WIS. STAT.

§ 802.08(2).

¶24 Sarko makes two arguments in its cross-appeal, which we consider 

in turn.

A. Whether Sarko was denied due process when Carroll petitioned for and 

obtained leave in the two original actions to file this new action.

¶25 Sarko argues that the circuit court lacked “competency” to proceed 

with this new action on the judgment because Sarko’s due process rights were 

violated when, according to Sarko, Carroll failed to provide proper notice in his 

petitions for leave as to the 2000 judgments under WIS. STAT. § 806.23, rendering 

the orders granting leave to sue void. We recap the pertinent facts. Carroll filed 

the petitions on October 16, 2019, in the small claims court that had rendered the 

2000 judgments and in the cases in which the 2000 judgments had been rendered, 

nineteen days after personally serving the petitions on Sarko. Seven days later on 
No. 2021AP857

11

October 23, 2019, the court commissioner entered orders granting the petitions in 

the cases in which the 2000 judgments had been rendered. Carroll subsequently 

filed this new action in the circuit court seeking to collect on the 2000 judgments.

¶26 We now explain why we reject Sarko’s due process argument. 

Sarko’s argument, properly construed, challenges the court commissioner’s orders 

granting Carroll’s petitions for leave on the ground that the petitions provided 

improper notice. Those orders were entered in October 2019 by the court 

commissioner in cases different from the case on appeal, and Sarko does not assert 

that it had no notice of those orders.

¶27 A court commissioner’s orders are not final orders that may be 

appealed directly to this court, but “must first go to the circuit court” for de novo 

review. Dane Cnty. v. C.M.B., 165 Wis. 2d 703, 709, 713, 478 N.W.2d 385 

(1992); WIS. STAT. § 799.207(2)(b) (providing that a party may file a demand for 

de novo review in the circuit court of a court commissioner’s decision); see also

State v. Trongeau, 135 Wis. 2d 188, 192-94, 400 N.W.2d 12 (Ct. App. 1986) 

(stating that this court does not have jurisdiction to review a court commissioner’s 

orders, and that the authority to review a court commissioner’s orders lies with the 

circuit court). To obtain de novo review by the circuit court, a party must file a 

timely demand. Absent such a demand, the court commissioner’s decision “shall 

become a judgment” and is no longer reviewable by the circuit court (or, for that 

matter, by the court of appeals). Sec. 799.207(2), (2)(b). Sarko did not seek de 

novo review in the circuit court of the court commissioner’s orders in the original
No. 2021AP857

12

actions. Therefore, Sarko’s failure to do so deprived the circuit court in this new 

action of competency to hear the challenge to the court commissioner’s orders.

6

¶28 Sarko’s effort to circumvent the court commissioner’s orders here is 

the essence of a collateral attack. “A collateral attack on a judgment is ‘an attempt 

to avoid, evade, or deny the force and effect of a judgment in an indirect manner 

and not in a direct proceeding prescribed by law and instituted for the purpose of 

vacating, reviewing, or annulling it.’” Oneida Cnty. DSS v. Nicole W., 2007 WI 

30, ¶27, 299 Wis. 2d 637, 728 N.W.2d 652 (citation omitted). In general, “a 

judgment is binding on the parties and may not be attacked in a collateral action 

unless it was procured by fraud.” Id., ¶28 (quoting State v. Madison, 120 Wis. 2d 

150, 154, 353 N.W.2d 835 (Ct.App.1984)). “Wisconsin courts have recognized 

the general disfavor of allowing collateral challenges on the basis that ‘they 

disrupt the finality of prior judgments and thereby tend to undermine confidence in 

the integrity of our procedures and inevitably delay and impair the orderly 

administration of justice.’” Id. (citation omitted).

¶29 In sum, we reject Sarko’s challenge to the court commissioner’s 

orders granting Carroll’s petitions for leave as a collateral attack on those orders, 

based on Sarko’s failure to seek de novo review in the circuit court of those orders 

in the original actions.

 

6

 We observe that the circuit court appears to have implicitly acknowledged that Sarko’s 

due process argument was, properly construed, addressed to the propriety of the court 

commissioner’s orders granting the petitions for leave and was, therefore, improperly raised in 

this action. At the start of the hearing on whether the petitions established good cause under WIS.

STAT. § 806.23, the court noted that it was holding the hearing to be consistent with proceedings 

in a separate action on judgment filed by Carroll against Sarko, but that it did not believe that 

such a hearing in this action was necessary. As indicated in the text, if Sarko believes that the 

court commissioner in the 1999 and 2000 cases proceeded on deficient petitions, then Sarko 

should have timely objected or sought de novo circuit court review in those cases.
No. 2021AP857

13

B. Whether the circuit court improperly included accrued post-judgment interest 

in the principal amount of the 2021 judgment.

¶30 Sarko argues that the circuit court erred by including accrued postjudgment interest in the principal amount of the 2021 judgment. To help clarify 

the narrow target of Sarko’s argument, we observe that Sarko does not dispute that 

statutory post-judgment interest has accrued on the 2000 judgments from the time 

of their entry until the 2021 judgment was entered by the circuit court in this case. 

Nor does Sarko dispute that the amount of that interest is properly included in the 

2021 judgment. Sarko also does not dispute that statutory interest will continue to 

accrue on the amounts of the 2000 judgments until those amounts are paid. 

However, Sarko argues that statutory interest should not accrue in the judgment in 

this case on the statutory interest that accrued on the amounts of the 2000 

judgments.

¶31 Thus, the issue is whether: (1) the amount of the 2021 judgment 

should be a new principal amount that includes the statutory post-judgment 

interest that has already accrued on the 2000 judgments, and that new principal 

amount will accrue interest going forward; or (2) the 2000 judgment amounts and 

accrued interest should be listed separately in the 2021 judgment and, going 

forward, statutory interest will accrue on the 2000 judgment amounts only. Sarko 

advocates for the second option. In support of that position, Sarko argues that the 

“amount recovered,” which is the amount eligible to accrue post-judgment interest 

under WIS. STAT. § 815.05(8), does not include statutory interest that has accrued 

on the 2000 judgments and that the accrued interest should not, therefore, continue 

to accrue statutory post-judgment interest following the 2021 judgment.

¶32 We first state the applicable standard of review and statutes, and 

explain the scope of “amount recovered” under WIS. STAT. § 815.05(8). We then 
No. 2021AP857

14

provide additional background and explain our conclusion that the circuit court 

properly entered a judgment that included twenty years of accrued statutory postjudgment interest on the 2000 judgment amounts, on which statutory postjudgment interest will continue to accrue.

1. Standard of Review and Applicable Statutes

¶33 The issue of whether the circuit court properly calculated the amount

on which statutory post-judgment interest will accrue involves an interpretation of 

WIS. STAT. § 815.05(8). We review de novo the interpretation and application of a 

statute to undisputed facts. Nelson v. McLaughlin, 211 Wis. 2d 487, 495, 565 

N.W.2d 123 (1997). Statutory interpretation begins with the language of the 

statute. State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Ct. for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 

Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. “Previous cases construing a statute also become a 

part of our understanding of a statute’s plain meaning.” Meyers v. Bayer AG, 

2007 WI 99, ¶23, 303 Wis. 2d 295, 735 N.W.2d 448.

¶34 WISCONSIN STAT. § 815.05(8) governs post-judgment interest. Prior 

to December 2, 2011, the statute provided that “every execution upon a judgment 

for the recovery of money shall direct the collection of interest at the rate of 12% 

per year on the amount recovered from the day of entry of judgment until it is 

paid.” WIS. STAT. § 815.05(8) (2009-10) (emphasis added). This twelve percent 

flat rate was in effect at the time of the 2000 judgments, Andersen, 110 Wis. 2d at 

24 n.2, and Sarko does not dispute that this twelve percent flat rate applied over 

the twenty years since the 2000 judgments were entered.

¶35 The current version of WIS. STAT. § 815.05(8), applicable to the 

2021 judgment, also states that interest accrues “on the amount recovered from the 

date of the entry of the judgment until it is paid.” (Emphasis added). However, 
No. 2021AP857

15

the annual interest rate that applies is “equal to 1 percent plus the prime rate in 

effect on January 1 of the year in which the judgment is entered.”7

¶36 As stated, the resolution of this part of Sarko’s cross-appeal turns on 

whether the statutory post-judgment interest that has accrued on the 2000 

judgments is included in the term “amount recovered” in WIS. STAT. § 815.05(8)

for purposes of calculating interest on the 2021 judgment.

2. Scope of “Amount Recovered”

¶37 Courts have interpreted the meaning of “amount recovered” as used 

in a similar statute, WIS. STAT. § 807.01(4), which instructs on how to calculate 

interest in cases where there is a rejected offer of settlement.8 Under both WIS.

STAT. § 815.05(8) and § 807.01(4), interest accrues on the “amount recovered” in 

the judgment.

¶38 Our supreme court in Nelson interpreted “amount recovered” to 

include only the portion of the verdict for which the party is responsible. 211 

Wis. 2d 487, ¶¶2, 19, 26 (concluding that where an insurance company was only 

 

7

 2011 Wisconsin Act 69 amended WIS. STAT. § 815.05(8) so that post-judgment interest 

is now commensurate with economic conditions at the time of judgment. The effective date of 

this change from the twelve percent post-judgment interest rate was December 2, 2011. See Wis. 

State. Leg., 2011 Wis. Act 69, available at https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/69.

8

 WISCONSIN. STAT. § 807.01(4) states:

If there is an offer of settlement by a party under this 

section which is not accepted and the party recovers a judgment 

which is greater than or equal to the amount specified in the offer 

of settlement, the party is entitled to interest ... on the amount 

recovered from the date of the offer of settlement until the 

amount is paid.

(Emphasis added).
No. 2021AP857

16

liable for a portion of the jury verdict up to its policy limits, the “amount 

recovered” for purposes of calculating interest was only the amount that the 

insurance company was individually responsible for). Applying the rationale from 

Nelson, this court in Majorowicz v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., extended “amount 

recovered” to include punitive damages, stating that “[b]ecause [the defendant] 

was responsible for the punitive damages, [the defendant] was also responsible for 

the ... interest assessed on the punitive damages under WIS. STAT. § 807.01(4).” 

212 Wis. 2d 513, 539, 569 N.W.2d 472 (Ct. App. 1997).

¶39 Conversely, “amount recovered” does not include costs or attorney’s 

fees that are added to a judgment. See American Motorists Ins. Co. v. R & S 

Meats, Inc., 190 Wis. 2d 196, 213-14, 526 N.W.2d 791 (Ct. App. 1994) (agreeing 

that “‘amount recovered’ is limited to the damages awarded, not double costs” 

awarded). Attorney’s fees and costs are “a shifting of the costs of litigation, and 

separate from recovery.” Dobbratz Trucking & Excavating, Inc. v. PACCAR, 

Inc., 2002 WI App 138, ¶31, 256 Wis. 2d 205, 647 N.W.2d 315.

¶40 Accrued interest has been properly included in the principal of a new 

judgment, i.e., the “amount recovered” for purposes of calculating post-judgment 

interest on the new judgment, in similar circumstances to the one at issue in the 

present case. See Upthegrove Hardware, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Lumbermans Ins. 

Co., 152 Wis. 2d 7, 11-14, 447 N.W.2d 367 (Ct. App. 1989) (Interest that accrued 

under the statute for untimely payment of insurance claims becomes part of the 

“amount recovered” for the purpose of calculating post-judgment interest under 

WIS. STAT. § 807.01(4).); Meier, 94 Wis. 2d at 561-62, 564 (affirming a new 

judgment that was comprised of the principal of an unsatisfied judgment and the 

accrued post-judgment interest).
No. 2021AP857

17

3. Additional Background

¶41 In April 2000, a judgment was entered for Carroll in the amount of 

$5,072 plus costs of $87. In June 2000, a judgment was entered for Carroll in the 

amount of $4,849.31 plus costs of $65.

¶42 Following the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment as to these 

two 2000 judgments in the present case, the court ordered that judgment in 

Carroll’s favor be entered in the amount of $34,249.25, comprised of the sum of 

the two following totals.

April 2000 Judgment

Principal $5,159.00

Interest $12,381.60

Total $17,540.60

June 2000 Judgment

Principal $4,914.31

Interest $11,794.34

Total $16,708.65

¶43 The interest on each of the principals was calculated by applying the 

statutory twelve percent interest rate for the twenty-year period that the 2000 

judgments were unsatisfied. See WIS. STAT. § 815.05(8) (2009-10).

4. “Amount Recovered” in the 2021 Judgment

¶44 Consistent with the legal principles summarized above, the “amount 

recovered” for purposes of calculating statutory post-judgment interest subsequent 

to the 2021 judgment includes both the 2000 judgment principals and the twenty 

years of accrued post-judgment interest on those principals. As stated, parties are 
No. 2021AP857

18

liable for interest on the portions of the judgment for which they are responsible. 

See Majorowicz, 212 Wis. 2d at 539; Upthegrove Hardware, 152 Wis. 2d at 

11-14; Meier, 94 Wis. 2d at 561-62, 564. Here, because Sarko was, at the time of 

the 2021 judgment, still responsible for paying both the principals of the 2000 

judgments and the twenty years of accrued statutory interest on those principals, 

the accrued interest is part of the “amount recovered” under WIS. STAT.

§ 815.05(8), and is, therefore, subject to continued statutory post-judgment interest 

going forward.

9

 Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court properly included 

the twenty years of accrued statutory post-judgment interest in the principal of the 

2021 judgment.

¶45 We now address Sarko’s arguments to the contrary. Sarko argues

that, under Nelson, American Motorists and Dobbratz, the “amount recovered” 

“mean[s] something different than the entirety of the judgment.” However, Sarko 

does not state sufficient reasoning connecting the specific rulings in Nelson, 

American Motorists, or Dobbratz, stated above, to Sarko’s specific assertion that 

the “amount recovered” does not include accrued post-judgment interest. Nor 

does Sarko’s reliance on those rulings give us reason to reject the analysis in ¶44, 

above. We reject Sarko’s argument based on those cases for this reason.

¶46 Sarko argues that “amount recovered” in an action on a judgment is 

equal only to the monetary damages awarded to the plaintiff in the original 

judgment because the original judgment is merely “revived and preserved.” In 

support, Sarko cites the following statement from Chase: “[t]he ‘action on 

 

9

 In addition, as we explain below, Sarko cites no law supporting the proposition that 

interest is, like costs, added to rather than incorporated into the judgment that Sarko is responsible 

for paying.
No. 2021AP857

19

judgment’ statute exists to revive expired or expiring judgments, not to enforce 

freshly entered ones.” Chase, 228 Wis. 2d at 202. Sarko argues that the action 

here can only revive the original principal amounts from the 2000 judgments and 

can “not enforce” a new judgment of a different amount. As we explain, Sarko 

takes the above quote from Chase out of context. More significantly, the issue in 

Chase did not involve any determination of the amount on the new judgment, but 

merely ruled that WIS. STAT. § 806.23 did not apply to the motion to enforce the 

judgment for specific performance that had been entered in that case. Id. at 200.

¶47 The dispute in Chase involved an order and judgment for specific 

performance requiring the defendant to comply with an option to purchase 

contract. Id. at 188. When the defendant refused to schedule the closing of the 

sale, the plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the judgment. Id. at 189. The 

defendant argued that the plaintiff could not enforce the judgment by motion but 

instead was required to file a new action on the judgment under WIS. STAT.

§ 806.23. Id. at 202. The court rejected that argument, explaining that § 806.23, 

the “action on judgment” statute, which applied to parties seeking to collect on

“money judgment[s] that had expired by virtue of the statute of limitations,” did 

not apply to the specific performance judgment at issue because “[t]he ‘action on 

judgment’ statute exists to revive expired or expiring judgments, not to enforce 

freshly entered ones.” Id. The judgment for specific performance in Chase was a 

“freshly entered” judgment, whereas the judgments governed by § 806.23 are 

“expired or expiring judgments.”

¶48 Sarko points to no language in Chase that concerns the 

determination of the amount of a new judgment under § 806.23, or that bars a 

circuit court from entering judgment for an amount that differs from the original 

judgments. In fact, other language in Chase clearly contradicts Sarko’s argument: 
No. 2021AP857

20

“[w]hen a judgment becomes unenforceable, a judgment creditor may file an 

‘action on the judgment’ in order to obtain a new, enforceable judgment,” id. at 

200-01 (emphasis added); “[a] party seeking to collect under [an expiring money 

judgment] must obtain a new judgment,” id. at 202 (emphasis added).

¶49 Sarko lastly argues that the statutory post-judgment interest accrued 

on the 2000 judgments should be added to the 2021 judgment as part of costs or 

otherwise something akin to a cost, i.e., a sum of money added to a judgment but 

which does not accrue interest. However, the circuit court cannot impose costs 

that are not specifically authorized by statute. See Kleinke v. Farmers Coop. 

Supply & Shipping, 202 Wis. 2d 138, 147, 549 N.W.2d 714 (1996). Sarko cites 

no legal authority that would allow the circuit court to impose the accrued interest 

on the 2000 judgments as a cost or anything akin to a cost.10

¶50 Before concluding, we observe that, while the circuit court properly 

included twenty years of accrued statutory post-judgment interest in the principal 

amount of the 2021 judgment, the 2000 judgment principals used to make that 

calculation were incorrect and require an adjustment. As argued by Sarko and 

pursuant to the law above, the “amount recovered” for purposes of calculating 

accrued statutory post-judgment interest does not include costs. Therefore, when 

calculating the twenty years of accrued statutory post-judgment interest on the 

2000 judgments, the principals that should be used are the amounts of the original 

 

10

 WIS. STAT. § 814.04(4) specifically authorizes pre-judgment interest to accrue “from 

the time of verdict, decision, or report until judgment is entered” and be added to the costs. This 

statute does not apply here, as the interest at issue is accrued post-judgment interest under 

§ 815.05(8), which does not authorize the circuit court to add the post-judgment interest to costs.
No. 2021AP857

21

judgments without costs: $5,072 and $4,849.31, respectively.

11 Applying the 

statutory twelve percent interest rate under WIS. STAT. § 815.05(8) (2009-10) over 

the twenty years the 2000 judgments were unsatisfied results in the following 

amounts of accrued interest: $12,172.80 and $11,638.34, respectively. The 

amount of accrued post-judgment interest included in the 2021 judgment should 

be corrected accordingly. Further, no costs (for either the 2000 judgments or the 

2021 judgment) should be included when calculating post-judgment interest on the 

2021 judgment.

¶51 In sum, we affirm the judgment, which includes twenty years of 

accrued statutory post-judgment interest in the 2021 judgment principal. However 

we remand to the circuit court to exclude costs from the principals of the 2000 

judgments when calculating accrued statutory post-judgment interest as indicated 

above.

CONCUSION

¶52 For the reasons stated above we affirm and remand with directions.

¶53 No costs to either party.

 

11

 Sarko also argues that the circuit court erred in allowing interest to accrue on prejudgment interest. Sarko is referencing the $24 of pre-judgment interest added to costs on the 

first 2000 judgment pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 814.04(4). Because pre-judgment interest is 

included in costs under § 814.04(4), removing costs from the principal before calculation of 

accrued post-judgment interest also properly removes any pre-judgment interest from that 

calculation.
No. 2021AP857

22

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed and cause remanded with 

directions.

Not recommended for publication in the official reports.