Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 242.04 (2026)
Transfer or obligation voidable as to present or future creditor
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
242.04(1)(1) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor, whether the creditor’s claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation:
242.04(1)(b)(b) Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor:
242.04(1)(b)1.1. Was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or
242.04(1)(b)2.2. Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the debtor’s ability to pay as they became due.
242.04(2)(2) In determining actual intent under sub. (1) (a), consideration may be given, among other factors, to whether:
242.04(2)(b)(b) The debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer;
242.04(2)(d)(d) Before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit;
242.04(2)(h)(h) The value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred;
242.04(2)(i)(i) The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred;
242.04(2)(j)(j) The transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred; and
242.04(2)(k)(k) The debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.
242.04(3)(3) A creditor making a claim for relief under sub. (1) has the burden of proving the elements of the claim for relief by a preponderance of the evidence.
242.04 AnnotationThe Wisconsin Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act [now the Uniform Voidable Transactions Law] exists independently from the common law history of the law of fraudulent conveyances and fulfills a purpose quite separate from that of the fraudulent transaction exception to the rule of successor non-liability. Whereas the Act is designed to assist creditors in collecting on claims that may be frustrated by recent asset transfers, the fraudulent transaction exception is a doctrine that prevents successor companies from avoiding obligations incurred by their predecessors. This chapter has not supplanted the common law fraudulent transaction exception to the rule of successor non-liability. Springer v. Nohl Electric Products Corporation, 2018 WI 48, 381 Wis. 2d 438, 912 N.W.2d 1, 15-0829.
242.04 AnnotationClaims brought under sub. (1) (a) premised on transfers made by a debtor with actual intent to “defraud” a creditor must be pleaded with particularity under s. 802.03 (2). However, when certain facts are peculiarly within the defendant’s knowledge, the heightened pleading standard may be relaxed and allegations based on information and belief may suffice, so long as the allegations are accompanied by a statement of facts upon which the belief is found. Miller Compressing Co. v. Busby, 2025 WI App 29, 416 Wis. 2d 354, 21 N.W.3d 778, 23-1379.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1937–2026 · leading case: Penny L. Springer v. Nohl Elec. Prods. Corp., 912 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 2018).
Penny L. Springer v. Nohl Elec. Prods. Corp., 912 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 2018). “So the court of appeals reversed and remanded the cause to the circuit court for a trial in which the jury would apply the "badges of fraud" contained in Wis. Stat. § 242.04 (2015-16)4 to determine whether Powers should be held responsible for the liabilities of its predecessor…”
Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI 128 (Wis. 2004). “The Taylors point out that Wis. Stat. § 242.04 (1)(a) proscribes transfers made with "actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor" 25 and protects transfers to a person who had no knowledge of a transferor's intent and "who took in good faith and for a reasonably…”
In re Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 483 B.R. 855 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2012). “The Committee seeks to file a Complaint against the Southeastern Parish Trust and the Parishes to recover the transfer pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 242.04 (l)(a) and 11 U.S.C. §§ 544 (a), 544(b), and 550(a).”
Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Great Lakes Quick Lube LP v. Theisen, 920 N.W.2d 356 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 242.04, the Individual Sellers are not entitled to summary judgment.”
Beck v. BidRX, LLC, 918 N.W.2d 96 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “BidRX and Fiscal also raise other grounds for reversal: the circuit court should have dismissed the garnishment complaint because it was not properly filed as a separate action, the complaint did not satisfy the applicable pleading standards, and the complaint failed to give…”
Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. United States Can Co., 441 N.W.2d 710 (Wis. 1989). “Can's acquisition of the Continental packaging sector pursuant to the merger transaction between the parties, defendants have made and will make conveyances and incur obligations which will render the surviving entity insolvent within the meaning of Section 4 of the Uniform…”
Mann v. Hanil Bank, 920 F. Supp. 944 (E.D. Wis. 1996). “Transfers Fraudulent to Present and Future Creditors — Section 242.04 To prevail on their claim under Wis.”
Borne v. Gonstead Advanced Techniques, Inc., 2003 WI App 135 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “In the fourth claim, the Trust asserts that the plan's adoption was an attempt to defraud the Trust of its proportionate share of GAT's assets and that by transferring the assets into the Foundation, the defendants will remain in control of them and therefore have violated Wis.…”
Olen v. Phelps, 546 N.W.2d 176 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “The statute provides: (1) A transfer made or obligations incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation: (a)…”
Crown Castle USA, Inc. v. Orion Constr. Grp., LLC, 2012 WI 29 (Wis. 2012). “The majority asserts that the court of appeals disregarded the corporate form by compelling Larson to testify regarding his two entirely separate corporations. Majority op., ¶ 20. This misconstrues the court of appeals' opinion.”
Kepler v. Atkinson (In Re Atkinson), 63 B.R. 266 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1986). “§ 242.04 which provides in relevant part: Every conveyance made .”
Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI App 17 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “First, they assert that the instant transaction was not a fraudulent transfer under Wis. Stat. § 242.04 (pertaining to transfers that are "fraudulent as to present and future creditors") because there is no showing of either an "actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud" the…”
— Wis. Stat. § 242.04(1) — 2 cases
Mann v. Hanil Bank, 920 F. Supp. 944 (E.D. Wis. 1996). “Transfers Fraudulent to Present and Future Creditors — Section 242.04 To prevail on their claim under Wis.”
SJ Props. Suites v. STJ, P.C., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (E.D. Wis. 2010).
— Wis. Stat. § 242.04(1)(a) — 9 cases
Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Great Lakes Quick Lube LP v. Theisen, 920 N.W.2d 356 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 242.04, the Individual Sellers are not entitled to summary judgment.”
Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI 128 (Wis. 2004). “The Taylors point out that Wis. Stat. § 242.04 (1)(a) proscribes transfers made with "actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor" 25 and protects transfers to a person who had no knowledge of a transferor's intent and "who took in good faith and for a reasonably…”
Borne v. Gonstead Advanced Techniques, Inc., 2003 WI App 135 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “In the fourth claim, the Trust asserts that the plan's adoption was an attempt to defraud the Trust of its proportionate share of GAT's assets and that by transferring the assets into the Foundation, the defendants will remain in control of them and therefore have violated Wis.…”
Miller Compressing Co. v. John E. Busby (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
SLK Capital, LLC v. Beach (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 242.04(1)(b) — 4 cases
Miller Compressing Co. v. John E. Busby (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
Veritas Steel, LLC v. Lunda Constr. Co., 923 N.W.2d 181 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).
Hang (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2026).
Vang (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2026).
— Wis. Stat. § 242.04(2) — 2 cases
Mann v. Hanil Bank, 920 F. Supp. 944 (E.D. Wis. 1996). “Transfers Fraudulent to Present and Future Creditors — Section 242.04 To prevail on their claim under Wis.”
SJ Props. Suites v. STJ, P.C., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (E.D. Wis. 2010).
— Wis. Stat. § 242.04(l)(a) — 4 cases
Olen v. Phelps, 546 N.W.2d 176 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “The statute provides: (1) A transfer made or obligations incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation: (a)…”
Mann v. Hanil Bank, 920 F. Supp. 944 (E.D. Wis. 1996). “Transfers Fraudulent to Present and Future Creditors — Section 242.04 To prevail on their claim under Wis.”
Rinehart v. Meek (In Re Grady), 128 B.R. 462 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1991).
SJ Props. Suites v. STJ, P.C., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (E.D. Wis. 2010).
— Wis. Stat. § 242.04(l)(a)(l) — 1 case
Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI 128 (Wis. 2004). “The Taylors point out that Wis. Stat. § 242.04 (1)(a) proscribes transfers made with "actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor" 25 and protects transfers to a person who had no knowledge of a transferor's intent and "who took in good faith and for a reasonably…”
— Wis. Stat. § 242.04(l)(b) — 1 case
Mann v. Hanil Bank, 920 F. Supp. 944 (E.D. Wis. 1996). “Transfers Fraudulent to Present and Future Creditors — Section 242.04 To prevail on their claim under Wis.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.