Opinion ID: 4546475
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conflicting Caselaw

Text: ¶118 The circuit court held that Muth failed to prove his setoff defense, and that accord and satisfaction may not be raised as a defense in restitution proceedings.3 A trilogy of cases have addressed these questions and form the backdrop for our discussion. ¶119 First, in State v. Sweat, we addressed a defendant's argument that any defense available in a civil action meant he could raise a civil statute of limitations defense pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.20(14)(b). 208 Wis. 2d 409, 413, 561 N.W.2d 695 (1997). We disagreed and concluded that this language was intended to include only defenses relating to the amount of [A]n accord and satisfaction consists of two elements: First, the accord or agreement, under which one of the parties undertakes to give or perform, and the other to accept, in satisfaction of a claim, something other than or different from that which the second party is, or considers itself to be, entitled to; and second, the satisfaction, that consists of the execution or performance of the accord or agreement. 29 Williston on Contracts § 73.27 (4th ed.) (footnotes omitted). 3 The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's setoff conclusion. State v. Muth, No. 2018AP875-CR, unpublished slip