Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 242.05 (2026)
Transfer or obligation voidable as to present creditor
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
242.05(1)(1) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation.
242.05(2)(2) A transfer made by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent.
242.05(3)(3) Subject to s. 242.02 (3), a creditor making a claim for relief under sub. (1) or (2) has the burden of proving the elements of the claim for relief by a preponderance of the evidence.
242.05 AnnotationUnlike other provisions of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act governing transfers made with fraudulent intent, this section deems certain transactions constructively fraudulent based on the circumstances of the transfer. Proving fraudulent intent is not necessary under this section. Beck v. BidRX, LLC, 2018 WI App 61, 384 Wis. 2d 207, 918 N.W.2d 96, 17-2043.
242.05 AnnotationSub. (2) addresses “preferential transfers,” a novel category of fraudulent transaction based on bankruptcy principles that attacks a transfer by an insolvent debtor to pay an antecedent debt to a preferred insider. The provision is aimed at diminishing the sometimes unfair advantages insiders possess when they are familiar with the debtor’s financial status. A person attacking a transfer under sub. (2) must show that the debtor is improperly preferring insider creditors over others. Beck v. BidRX, LLC, 2018 WI App 61, 384 Wis. 2d 207, 918 N.W.2d 96, 17-2043.
242.05 AnnotationThe evidence in this case was insufficient to prove a fraudulent transfer under sub. (2) because no evidence was introduced showing that the allegedly fraudulent transfers were made to satisfy an antecedent debt. The fact of a transfer to an insider is not enough; it is the preferential payment of prior debts to insiders to which sub. (2) is addressed. Beck v. BidRX, LLC, 2018 WI App 61, 384 Wis. 2d 207, 918 N.W.2d 96, 17-2043.
242.05 AnnotationIntent to defraud need not be proved under this section. DeWitt, Porter v. Kovalic, 991 F.2d 1243 (1993).
242.05 NoteNOTE: The above annotations relate to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act as adopted in this chapter prior to the revision and renaming of that chapter to the Uniform Voidable Transactions Law by 2023 Wis. Act 246.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1941–2022 · leading case: Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI 128 (Wis. 2004).
Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI 128 (Wis. 2004). “1 The circuit court granted summary judgment to Roger Taylor, Rodney Taylor, and Economy Feed Mill (collectively the Taylors), dismissing Badger State Bank's complaint alleging that the Taylors were the recipients of fraudulent transfers within the meaning of the Wisconsin…”
Beck v. BidRX, LLC, 918 N.W.2d 96 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 242.05(1) - (2) corresponds to UFTA § 5(a) -(b).”
Finch v. Southside Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 2004 WI App 110 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “The Finches sued Southside, Ford and the three directors, alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty and intentional interference with a contract against both Ford and the directors, and a fraudulent transfer claim under Wis. Stat. § 242.05 (1) (2001-02) 3 against Ford.”
Sandra K. Shockley v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 872 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2017). “Wis. Stat. Ann. § 242.05 (1). The WIUFTA defines “transfer” broadly as “every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an asset, and includes payment of money, release, lease and…”
Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI App 17 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “if the debtor made the transfer ... without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer .”
Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. United States Can Co., 441 N.W.2d 710 (Wis. 1989). “The transaction which defendants have completed, or are about to complete, involves conveyances and obligations on the part of defendants which will leave the surviving merged entity severely and unreasonably undercapitalized within the meaning of § 5 of the Uniform Fraudulent…”
Mann v. Hanil Bank, 920 F. Supp. 944 (E.D. Wis. 1996). “Transfers Fraudulent as to Present Creditors — Section 242.05 To prevail on their claim under Wis.”
Exec. Ctr. III, LLC v. Meieran, 823 F. Supp. 2d 883 (E.D. Wis. 2012). “04 (1)(b); (2) received a fraudulent transfer in violation of Wis. Stat. § 242.05 (2); (3) received a fraudulent transfer in violation of Wis.”
Kepler v. Atkinson (In Re Atkinson), 63 B.R. 266 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1986). “§ 242.05 which provides in relevant part: Every conveyance made without fair consideration when the person making it is engaged or is about to engage in a business or transaction for which the property remaining in his hands after the conveyance is an unreasonably small capital,…”
United States v. Linda K. Frykholm, Intervening Third-Party Claimant: Cotswold Trading Co., Ltd., 362 F.3d 413 (3rd Cir. 2004). “§ 548 (a)(1)(B)) provides a standard definition of a fraudulent conveyance: a transfer in which the debtor “(i) received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for such transfer or obligation; and (ii)(I) was insolvent on the date that such transfer was made or such…”
Dubis v. B.W. Supply (In Re Delta Grp.), 300 B.R. 918 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2003). “07 allows “a creditor” to avoid a transfer described in § 242.05. For these reasons, while the language of Wis.”
Kepler v. Koch (In re Kirchner), 372 B.R. 459 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2007). “Wis. Stat. § 242.05 (1) (2001) (same in 2005).”
— Wis. Stat. § 242.05(1) — 8 cases
Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI 128 (Wis. 2004). “1 The circuit court granted summary judgment to Roger Taylor, Rodney Taylor, and Economy Feed Mill (collectively the Taylors), dismissing Badger State Bank's complaint alleging that the Taylors were the recipients of fraudulent transfers within the meaning of the Wisconsin…”
Finch v. Southside Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 2004 WI App 110 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “The Finches sued Southside, Ford and the three directors, alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty and intentional interference with a contract against both Ford and the directors, and a fraudulent transfer claim under Wis. Stat. § 242.05 (1) (2001-02) 3 against Ford.”
Beck v. BidRX, LLC, 918 N.W.2d 96 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 242.05(1) - (2) corresponds to UFTA § 5(a) -(b).”
Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI App 17 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “if the debtor made the transfer ... without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer .”
Mann v. Hanil Bank, 920 F. Supp. 944 (E.D. Wis. 1996). “Transfers Fraudulent as to Present Creditors — Section 242.05 To prevail on their claim under Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 242.05(2) — 3 cases
Beck v. BidRX, LLC, 918 N.W.2d 96 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 242.05(1) - (2) corresponds to UFTA § 5(a) -(b).”
Dubis v. B.W. Supply (In Re Delta Grp.), 300 B.R. 918 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2003). “07 allows “a creditor” to avoid a transfer described in § 242.05. For these reasons, while the language of Wis.”
GPM Se. LLC v. Riiser Fuels LLC (E.D. Wis. 2022).
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.