If, in any action, a recovery be had by one party and costs be awarded to the other the court may set off one against the other and render judgment for the balance.
814.12.Costs may be set off.
Ch. 814: Court Costs, Fees, and Surcharges · Last amended 1975 · Last verified July 15, 2026
In one sentenceSection 814.12 lets a court net one party’s cost award against the other party’s recovery, rather than requiring separate collection, whenever a party who won a recovery also owes costs to the opposing side.
Full Text of Section 814.12
Plain-English Summary
Section 814.12 handles a situation that comes up when the outcome of a case cuts both ways: one party recovers a judgment, but costs have been awarded to the other party. Rather than making the parties collect from each other separately, the court may set off one against the other and enter judgment for the difference.
This is a matter of the court’s discretion rather than an automatic offset. The section gives the court the tool to net the two obligations into a single balance, which avoids the pointless step of one party paying the other in full only to have the payment flow back the other way for the cost award.
Frequently Asked Questions
If I win a judgment but the other side was awarded costs, do we each have to pay each other separately?
Not necessarily. Section 814.12 lets the court set off the recovery against the costs and enter judgment for the balance, so only the net amount changes hands.
Is the setoff under section 814.12 automatic?
The section frames it as something the court may do, meaning the court has discretion to net the amounts rather than being required to do so in every case.
Does section 814.12 apply only when the same party both wins and owes costs?
The section addresses the situation where a recovery is had by one party and costs are awarded to the other, which is precisely the scenario where each side owes the other something.
What does the judgment look like after a setoff under this section?
Section 814.12 directs the court to render judgment for the balance, meaning the smaller of the two amounts is subtracted from the larger and judgment enters for the difference.
Why would a court prefer a setoff over requiring both payments to be made separately?
The section does not state a reason, but netting the amounts avoids two separate payments where only the net difference needs to change hands.
Amendment History
History: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 761 (1975); Stats. 1975 s. 814.12.
Source & verification. Section text and official notes are
reproduced verbatim from the Wisconsin Statutes, published by the
Wisconsin Legislature (Legislative Reference Bureau). Last verified July 15, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: wisconsin costs set off against judgmentnetting costs and recovery wisconsin814.12 setoffoffsetting costs wisconsin lawsuit