Dane County v. Jeramiah Bradley

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
September 18, 2025
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2025AP172 Cir. Ct. No. 2024FO1971

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV

DANE COUNTY,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

JERAMIAH BRADLEY,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County:
MARIO WHITE, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded with directions.

¶1 NASHOLD, J.1 Jeramiah Bradley was charged with a forfeiture
offense for possessing a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. He moved to
dismiss the complaint, arguing that under the facts alleged, he could not be guilty

1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(g) (2023-24).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.
No. 2025AP172

of the forfeiture. At the hearing on Bradley’s motion, the State2 conceded that
Bradley was correct, and the circuit court dismissed the action. Bradley then
submitted a bill of costs, arguing that under WIS. STAT. ch. 778, which governs
certain forfeiture actions, a defendant receiving a favorable judgment is entitled to
various costs, including attorney fees. The court denied Bradley’s request for
costs, and Bradley appealed the denial. Because I conclude that Bradley is entitled
to the costs he seeks, I reverse.

BACKGROUND

¶2 The complaint alleged that Bradley knowingly possessed a firearm at
a place he knew or had reason to know was within 1,000 feet of a school, in
violation of WIS. STAT. § 948.605(2)(a). Bradley argued in his dismissal motion
that he is a concealed-carry permit holder, that he was not subject to
§ 948.605(2)(a) unless he possessed the firearm while on the grounds of a school
as that term is defined in the relevant statutes, and that the complaint failed to
allege that he was on the grounds of a school. See § 948.605(1)(b), (2)(b)1r.; WIS.
STAT. § 948.61(1)(b).

¶3 At the beginning of the hearing on Bradley’s dismissal motion, the
assistant district attorney agreed with Bradley’s position, saying that she had
studied the statutes and concluded that Bradley could not be charged under WIS.
STAT. § 948.605 because the case involved a school administration building,
which is not included in the definition of “school” under WIS. STAT.

2
For reasons that will be explained below, the plaintiff-respondent in this action should
be the State of Wisconsin, rather than Dane County. This opinion will refer to the plaintiff-
respondent as “the State” throughout.

2
No. 2025AP172

§ 948.61(1)(b). The prosecutor stated: “[I]n … reading … the statute, I think [the]
defense wins this motion, and the State concedes on that basis and will be
dismissing the forfeiture action accordingly.”

¶4 Bradley then submitted a bill of costs pursuant to WIS. STAT.
§ 778.20, seeking compensation for jury fees, the judgment docketing fee, the
electronic filing fee, and $300 in attorney fees, for a total of $381.85. The State
objected. A few days later, the circuit court issued a written decision denying
Bradley’s request for costs. Bradley appeals.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

¶5 This case turns on the construction of statutes, a task this court
performs independently of the circuit court. State v. Keith, 216 Wis. 2d 61, 68,
573 N.W.2d 888 (Ct. App. 1997). In construing a statute, this court first looks to
the language of the statute. This court interprets statutes with an eye toward their
“scope, context, and purpose” as discerned from the text. Service Emps. Int’l
Union Healthcare Wis. v. WERC, 2025 WI 29, ¶10, 416 Wis. 2d 688, 22 N.W.3d
876.

II. The Text of WIS. STAT. § 778.20

¶6 “[I]n this state costs are regulated exclusively by statute as a matter
of legislative discretion.” City of Milwaukee v. Leschke, 57 Wis. 2d 159, 161,
203 N.W.2d 669 (1973). “In the absence of a statute authorizing costs they are not
recoverable.” Id.

3
No. 2025AP172

¶7 Bradley contends that he is entitled to costs under WIS. STAT.
§ 778.20. WISCONSIN STAT. ch 778 is titled “Collection of forfeitures” and lays
out procedures for prosecuting various types of forfeiture cases in both municipal
and circuit courts. Section 778.20 provides:

In all actions brought under [WIS. STAT §] 778.10 the town,
city, village or corporation in whose name such action is
brought shall be liable for the costs of prosecution; and, if
judgment be for defendant, for all the costs of the action,
and judgment shall be entered accordingly. In all other
actions brought under the provisions of this chapter, except
as provided in [WIS. STAT §] 778.04, the county in which
the forfeiture was incurred shall be liable for the costs of
the prosecution, and, if judgment be for defendant, for all
the costs of the action.

¶8 Bradley specifically relies on the second sentence of this provision,
which by its terms governs all actions brought under WIS. STAT. ch. 778 other than
those brought under WIS. STAT. § 778.10. (The noted exception for cases affected
by WIS. STAT. § 778.04 does not apply here.) Section 778.10 governs the recovery
of “forfeitures imposed by any ordinance or regulation of any county, town, city,
or village, or of any other domestic corporation.” As Bradley notes, the forfeiture
with which he was charged is found in the state statutes (specifically, WIS. STAT.
§ 948.605) rather than in a municipal ordinance. Thus, this is not an action
brought under § 778.10. Rather, as Bradley maintains, this is an action brought
under WIS. STAT. § 778.01, which authorizes civil actions to recover “a forfeiture
imposed by statute” so long as the act or omission involved is not punishable by a
fine and/or by imprisonment.3 See WIS. STAT. § 939.12 (conduct punishable by

3
A different section, WIS. STAT. § 778.02, provides that every action to recover a
forfeiture imposed by statute “shall be in the name of the state of Wisconsin.” This is why, as
both parties now agree, the caption of this case is erroneous. The district attorney’s office is
authorized to prosecute both forfeitures imposed by statute and forfeitures imposed by county
ordinance in conformity with state criminal laws. WIS. STAT. § 978.05(2). Thus, the district
(continued)

4
No. 2025AP172

fine or imprisonment or both is a crime; conduct punishable only by forfeiture is
not a crime). Bradley argues that because this action was brought under § 778.01,
it is an action “brought under the provisions of” ch. 778, but not under § 778.10,
and so the second sentence of WIS STAT. § 778.20 applies. Thus, he argues that
“the county in which the forfeiture was incurred” (Dane County) is “liable for the
costs of the prosecution” and that because judgment was for Bradley, the county is
also liable for “all the costs of the action.” § 778.20. Those “costs,” including
statutory attorney fees, are in turn specified in WIS. STAT. § 814.04, which
establishes costs “when allowed.” See also WIS. STAT. § 801.01(2) (applying WIS.
STAT. chs. 801-847 to all civil actions “except where different procedure is
prescribed by statute or rule”).

III. The State’s Arguments

¶9 The State raises several objections to Bradley’s reading of WIS.
STAT. § 778.20, each depending on a different statutory phrase.4 In the order in
which the terms appear in the statute, the State argues that: (1) this case is not an

attorney would be authorized to bring this action whether it was grounded in a state statute or a
county ordinance. However, because the forfeiture with which Bradley was charged is found in
the state statutes, the district attorney should have brought the case as the “State of Wisconsin v.
Jeramiah Bradley.” (Actions to recover municipal forfeitures, on the other hand, are properly
brought “in the name of the county, town, city, village, or corporation.” WIS. STAT. § 778.10.)
No party has suggested that this error affects the outcome of the case.
4
The State’s brief does not comply with WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(8)(bm), which
addresses the pagination of appellate briefs. See RULE 809.19(8)(bm) (providing that, when
paginating briefs, parties should use “Arabic numerals with sequential numbering starting at ‘1’
on the cover”). This rule was amended in 2021, see S. CT. ORDER 20-07 (eff. July 1, 2021), and
the reason for the amendment is that briefs are now electronically filed in PDF format, and are
electronically stamped with page numbers when they are accepted for e-filing. As our supreme
court explained when it amended the rule, the new pagination requirements ensure that the
numbers on each page of a brief “will match ... the page header applied by the eFiling system,
avoiding the confusion of having two different page numbers” on every page of a brief. S. CT.
ORDER 20-07 cmt. at x1.

5
No. 2025AP172

“action[] brought under the provisions of [WIS. STAT. ch. 778]”; (2) no “forfeiture
was incurred”; and (3) “judgment” was not entered for Bradley. I address each
argument in turn.

A. The State brought this action under WIS. STAT. ch. 778.

¶10 The State offers two arguments as to why its forfeiture action against
Bradley was not “brought under the provisions of [WIS. STAT. ch. 778]” such that
the cost-shifting rule of WIS. STAT. § 778.20 does not apply. Neither is
persuasive.

¶11 Focusing on the first sentence of WIS. STAT. § 778.20, the State first
notes that “[t]his is not … a forfeiture under [WIS. STAT. §] 778.10.” Although
this is true, it is beside the point. As discussed above, Bradley does not claim that
this action was brought under § 778.10, which governs municipal forfeitures;
rather, he correctly argues that this case falls under WIS. STAT. § 778.01, which
governs forfeitures found in state statute, and is therefore covered by the second
sentence in § 778.20. At the risk of stating the obvious, an action brought under
§ 778.01 is necessarily an “action brought under the provisions of [WIS. STAT.
ch. 778].” § 778.20. As such, an action brought under § 778.01, just like one
brought under § 778.10, is subject to the cost-shifting provisions of § 778.20. The
State’s observation that § 778.10 is inapplicable does not support its position that
the entire chapter is inapplicable.

¶12 The State next argues that, rather than being brought under WIS.
STAT. ch. 778, this action was brought under WIS. STAT. § 978.05(2). This
provision is part of the statute titled “Duties of the district attorney,” and it lists
several categories of forfeitures that it authorizes district attorneys to prosecute.
What it does not do, however, is provide any procedures under which forfeitures

6
No. 2025AP172

could be prosecuted. That is, § 978.05(2) confers on the district attorney the duty
to prosecute forfeitures. It does not set out the rules for how such actions are filed,
what the complaint must contain, or what sums a complaint may seek; all of those
matters are found in ch. 778. WIS. STAT. §§ 778.02, .03, .06. Thus, even though
the State is correct that § 978.05(2) applies to this case—in that the statute
empowered the district attorney’s office to file the action in the first place—this
fact does not suggest that ch. 778, which lays out rules for forfeiture actions, does
not also apply. To illustrate by analogy, another subsection of § 978.05 directs
district attorneys to prosecute all criminal actions within the prosecutorial unit.
See § 978.05(1). But the procedures for criminal prosecutions are not found in
§ 978.05(1); rather, they are found chiefly in WIS. STAT. chs. 967-974. It would
be unreasonable to say that these procedures do not apply to criminal cases
because a district attorney’s duty to prosecute crimes is set out in § 978.05(1). It is
equally incorrect to claim, as the State does here, that § 978.05(2), in empowering
district attorneys to prosecute forfeitures, removes such prosecutions from the
procedural statutes that expressly govern them.

¶13 To be clear, WIS. STAT. ch. 778 does not govern all forfeitures.
WISCONSIN STAT. ch. 66, for example, sets forth its own procedural provisions for
certain forfeitures brought by municipal entities. See WIS. STAT. §§ 66.0113-
.0114. But the State offers no source of procedure applicable to this case other
than ch. 778. I conclude that this case is an action to recover a “forfeiture imposed
by statute” under WIS. STAT. § 778.01, and thus is an action “brought under the
provisions of [ch. 778],” potentially subject to the cost-shifting imposed by WIS.
STAT. § 778.20.

7
No. 2025AP172

B. This was an (unsuccessful) action to recover a “forfeiture” the State
claimed “was incurred” in Dane County.

¶14 The State’s second argument is that this case does not involve a
“forfeiture [that] was incurred” as that phrase is used in WIS. STAT. § 778.20. See
§ 778.20 (“[T]he county in which the forfeiture was incurred shall be liable for the
costs of the prosecution, and, if judgment be for defendant, for all the costs of the
action.”). This was also the reason the circuit court gave for denying Bradley’s
request for costs, saying, “[The State] has not initiated a civil action to collect any
forfeiture against the defendant.” Although the State does not present its argument
in detail, the gist seems to be that the statutory reference to the county where the
“forfeiture was incurred” means that the provision applies only if there has been
some previous event—presumably litigation—establishing that the forfeiture is
owed. That is, in the State and the circuit court’s view, § 778.20 governs fees only
where the State has already proven the forfeiture and is pursuing some type of
collection action under WIS. STAT. ch. 778.

¶15 There are several problems with this argument. For one, it depends
entirely on reading the word “incurred” to mean “imposed by a court,” which, as
noted above, would have had to occur in a prior proceeding. But the phrase
“forfeiture was incurred” does not lead to the conclusion that the forfeiture has
previously been ordered by a court. To “incur” is “to become liable or subject to,”
Incur, MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, https://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/incur (last visited September 12, 2025), or to “suffer or bring on oneself
(a liability or expense).” Incur, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024).
Therefore, one can “incur” a forfeiture by “becom[ing] liable or subject to” it—
that is, by committing the act for which the law imposes the forfeiture. The term
itself implies no requirement that one must have been previously adjudicated

8
No. 2025AP172

guilty of a forfeiture offense to have “incurred” it. In fact, other jurisdictions have
expressly held that one “incurs” the penalty for an act at the moment one commits
the act. See United States v. Goncalves, 642 F.3d 245, 252 (1st Cir. 2011)
(“‘Incurred’ means ‘to which one is subject’—not ‘already imposed’—and so
looks to the time of the conduct that makes the defendant liable rather than the
date of conviction or imposition of sentence.” (quoted source omitted)); Patrick v.
Commissioner of Corr., 227 N.E.2d 348, 351 (Mass. 1967) (“‘punishment,
penalty or forfeiture’ is ‘incurred’ … at the time the offence for which punishment
is imposed is committed” (quoted source omitted; emphasis added)). The term
“incurred” thus does not carry the necessary implication that a forfeiture has
previously been “imposed” by legal process.

¶16 Second, statutory language is interpreted with a view toward its
“scope, context, and purpose,” at least when these things are “ascertainable from
the text and structure of the statute itself.” State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Ct. for
Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶48, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. Looking at
WIS. STAT. § 778.20, the context of the phrase “forfeiture was incurred” suggests
that the phrase is not directed toward restricting a defendant’s costs to the
successful defense of a collection action. Rather, the phrase establishes who is
responsible for paying costs when a defendant prevails in any forfeiture action
under WIS. STAT. ch. 778. Section 778.20 itself is titled “Who liable for costs,”
and it allocates responsibility for the “costs of prosecution” and “costs of the
action” in two types of cases brought by two different types of governmental
plaintiffs: a municipal entity (“town, city, village or corporation”) that is
authorized to prosecute forfeitures imposed by ordinance under WIS. STAT.
§ 778.10; or, in the case of forfeitures imposed by statute, the State. If a case is
brought by the State (that is, if it concerns a statutory forfeiture), the county where

9
No. 2025AP172

the action accrued (and whose district attorney’s office is responsible for initiating
the prosecution under WIS. STAT. § 978.05(2)) is responsible for the costs of
prosecution and, if the defendant wins the case, the costs of the entire action. That
is, § 778.20’s phrase “county in which the forfeiture was incurred” localizes the
responsibility for costs where the State is a party and there is a judgment for the
defendant; it does not define a category of collection actions in which a defendant
may receive costs.

¶17 Taking a step back and looking at statutory context and purpose
more broadly, nothing in WIS. STAT. ch. 778 supports the State’s view that the
chapter provides a mechanism to collect forfeitures previously imposed rather than
to determine liability for those forfeitures in the first place. Instead of describing
collection mechanisms, the chapter as a whole lays out procedures for alleging and
proving that a person has violated a statute for which the penalty is a forfeiture.

¶18 For example, WIS. STAT. § 778.02, governing actions for forfeitures
created by statute, requires the State to specify the statute which imposes the
forfeiture, and, if that statute describes “several offenses or delinquencies,” to
“specify the particular offense or delinquency for which the action is brought.”
WISCONSIN STAT. § 778.06 instructs the court or jury to render judgment for “such
sum as the court or jury shall assess or determine to be proportionate to the
offense.” And WIS. STAT. § 778.10 directs municipalities proceeding under the
chapter to “allege in the complaint that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in
the amount of the forfeiture claimed, specifying the ordinance or regulation that
imposes it” and requires that “[i]f the ordinance or regulation imposes a penalty or
forfeiture for several offenses or delinquencies, the complaint shall specify the
particular offenses or delinquency for which the action is brought.” None of these
provisions—which describe the actions for which the chapter, as a whole,

10
No. 2025AP172

establishes the procedure—outline a mechanism merely for collecting forfeitures
previously imposed. It would be anomalous if the chapter’s provision for
assigning costs in State forfeiture actions applied only to actions—the State’s
hypothesized collection-type actions—the rest of the chapter does not
contemplate.5

C. The dismissal of the forfeiture was a “judgment … for defendant” under
WIS. STAT. § 778.20.

¶19 The State suggests that Bradley cannot recover costs because “the
circuit court never awarded [him] a judgment.” See WIS. STAT. § 778.20 (county
is responsible for costs “if judgment be for defendant”). Bradley notes that the
term “judgment” is defined within the statutory civil procedure rules as “the
determination of the action.” WIS. STAT. § 806.01(1)(a). By operation of WIS.
STAT. § 801.01(2), this definition applies to “all civil actions … except where
different procedure is prescribed by statute or rule.” A forfeiture proceeding is a
“civil action.” Village of Bayside v. Bruner, 33 Wis. 2d 533, 535, 148 N.W.2d 5
(1967); WIS. STAT. § 778.01 (forfeitures imposed by statute “may be recovered in
a civil action”). Therefore, the circuit court’s dismissal of the forfeiture appears to
be a judgment, in that it determined the action by rendering Bradley not liable.
This conclusion would be undermined by showing that a “different procedure”
laid out elsewhere provides a different meaning for the word “judgment” in this

5
WISCONSIN STAT. ch. 778 does include a provision for “Collection of forfeitures and
related charges by assignment” in its last section, WIS. STAT. § 778.30. Notably, this section does
not describe litigation, but rather the docketing of judgments, the garnishment of wages, and other
means of enforcing debts generally. Because it does not concern adversary litigation, this section
is not likely to give rise to situations in which “judgment” could “be for defendant”; thus, it
would not make sense to conclude that WIS. STAT. § 778.20’s reference to “forfeiture[s] …
incurred” invokes the collection procedures in § 778.30.

11
No. 2025AP172

context, but, as explained below, the State’s arguments on this point are
unpersuasive.

¶20 The State suggests that a different definition of the term “judgment”
applies in forfeiture cases, asserting that “[t]here are two types of judgments in a
criminal or state forfeiture action: conviction and acquittal.” Because the
dismissal here was neither a conviction nor an acquittal, the State argues, the
dismissal was not a “judgment” by this definition. But the statute the State cites
for this claim is WIS. STAT. § 972.13, which governs criminal trials. This case is
not a criminal trial, and the State does not attempt to explain why § 972.13 has any
application here.

¶21 The State also cites Dane County v. Gibbs, No. 2012AP2589,
unpublished slip op. (WI App Apr. 4, 2013), as persuasive authority: specifically,
as a forfeiture case in which this court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of fees to
the defendant. But that defendant, Gibbs, did “not assert that a judgment was
entered in favor of him,” id., ¶4, so this court had no occasion to consider what
constitutes a “judgment” under WIS. STAT. § 778.20. The Gibbs analysis instead
focused on WIS. STAT. § 814.23, which applies to actions in which a county is a
party, and directs that costs go to the “prevailing party.” See Gibbs,
No. 2012AP2589, ¶5. Here, erroneous caption notwithstanding, Dane County is
not a party to the action; therefore, § 814.23 does not apply. The State has not
supplied an applicable definition of “judgment” that differs from the one given in
WIS. STAT. § 806.01(1)(a). Accordingly, I accept Bradley’s argument that the
court’s dismissal of the forfeiture was the “determination of the action” and thus
constituted “judgment … for defendant” under § 778.20.

12
No. 2025AP172

D. The State’s policy argument is not persuasive.

¶22 The State’s final argument is that permitting a forfeiture defendant to
recover costs when the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action will have a
“profound, detrimental effect … on the people of Wisconsin” in that the State will
be unlikely—due to the risk of having to pay attorney fees—to voluntarily dismiss
forfeiture actions even when such dismissals are for good reason and to the
community’s benefit. The State’s concern is speculative and unsupported by any
facts. This is not the first case to hold that the statutes require the government, as
the plaintiff in a forfeiture, to pay the defendant’s costs when the defendant
prevails; Leschke reached this conclusion more than 50 years ago. See Leschke,
57 Wis. 2d at 165. What is more, given the clarity of the statutes and the dearth of
prior appellate cases on this point, there is no reason to believe that defendants do
not already routinely recover costs in situations like this one. Finally, I note that
the statutory attorney fees, which make up most of the costs at issue here, range
from $100 to a maximum of $500, WIS. STAT. § 814.04(1)(a), and only come into
play when the defendant in a forfeiture action actually hires a lawyer, see
§ 814.04(1)(c). It therefore seems likely that the effect of this decision on “the
people of Wisconsin” will be rather modest. But more importantly, whether or not
this assessment is correct, the statutes say what they say. This court cannot
substitute its judgment for that of the legislature.

CONCLUSION

¶23 For all the reasons set forth above, the circuit court’s order denying
costs is reversed, and the case is remanded so that the court may assess costs as the
statutes require.

13
No. 2025AP172

By the Court.—Order reversed and cause remanded with directions.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

14