893.01 Civil actions; objection as to time of commencing. Civil actions may be commenced only within the periods prescribed in this chapter, except when, in special cases, a different limitation is provided by statute. An objection that the action was not commenced within the time limited may only be taken by answer or motion to dismiss under s. 802.06 (2) in proper cases.

History: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 770 (1975); 1979 c. 323.

Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1979: This section remains from previous ch. 893 and is revised only for purposes of textual clarity. [Bill 326-A]

Estoppel can be invoked to preclude a defense based on a statute of limitations when a defendant has been guilty of fraudulent or inequitable conduct. The conduct need not constitute actual fraud, but may be equivalent to a representation upon which the plaintiff may have relied to his or her disadvantage by not commencing his or her action within the statutory period. That conduct must have occurred before the expiration of the limitation period with no unreasonable delay by the aggrieved party after the inducement therefor has ceased to operate. State ex rel. Susedik v. Knutson, 52 Wis. 2d 593, 191 N.W.2d 23 (1971).

A court has no authority to enlarge the time in which to file a complaint. Pulchinski v. Strnad, 88 Wis. 2d 423, 276 N.W.2d 781 (1979).

When a limitation period would otherwise expire on a legal holiday, s. 990.001 (4) (b) permits the commencement of an action on the next secular day. Cuisinier v. Sattler, 88 Wis. 2d 654, 277 N.W.2d 776 (1979).

Statutes of limitations are substantive statutes and are not given retroactive effect. Betthauser v. Medical Protective Co. 172 Wis. 2d 141, 493 N.W.2d 40 (1992).

A circuit court may use its equitable powers to set aside a statute of imitations if certain enumerated circumstances are present. Williams v. Kaerek Builders, Inc. 212 Wis. 2d 150, 568 N.W.2d 313 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2396.

The primary reason for applying equitable estoppel to bar a defendant from asserting the statute of limitations is when the conduct and representations of the defendant were so unfair and misleading as to outbalance the public's interest in setting a limitation on bringing actions. Wosinski v. Advance Cast Stone Co. 2017 WI App 51, 377 Wis. 2d 596, 901 N.W.2d 797, 14-1961.

A defendant was estopped from pleading the statute of limitations by fraudulent conduct that prevented the plaintiff from filing a timely suit. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (1984).

Remedying the Confusion Between Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose in Wisconsin — A Conceptual Guide, La Fave, 88 MLR 927 (2005)