This practice was followed here. Therefore, we conclude that the agreement required by the WCA is one made before services were rendered and that permitting a debtor to pay over time only after attempts at collecting the bill in full have failed does not cause the transaction to become a consumer credit transaction. The Paternity Judgment. He contends that because the paternity judgment in this case directs that he is responsible for one-half of all uninsured medical expenses, Dean is precluded from collecting from him. He argues that Dean can recover the full cost of necessary services only from the custodial parent and then the custodial parent may seek reimbursement from him in family court.
Fields concedes that the doctrine of necessaries is alive and well in Wisconsin.
His sole contention is that a paternity judgment overrides a creditor's rights under the doctrine of necessaries. Fields adopts that position and also contends that permitting Dean's suit against him will encourage custodial parents to incur debt without restraint. For the reasons stated below, we do not find this reasoning persuasive. As we begin our analysis of Fields's contentions, we note that Wisconsin courts have consistently held that a person who was not a party to the action, or who did not stand in privity with a party, is not bound by the subsequent judgment. The courts have recognized that it is unfair to bind non-parties because they have had no opportunity to participate in the proceedings.