Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 242.08 (2026)
Defenses, liability, and protection of transferee or obligee
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
242.08(1)(1) A transfer or obligation is not voidable under s. 242.04 (1) (a) against a person who took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value given the debtor or against any subsequent transferee or obligee.
242.08(2)(2) To the extent a transfer is voidable in an action by a creditor under s. 242.07 (1) (a), all of the following rules apply:
242.08(2)(am)(am) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the creditor may recover judgment for the value of the asset transferred, as adjusted under sub. (3), or the amount necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim, whichever is less. The judgment may be entered against any of the following:
242.08(2)(am)1.1. The first transferee of the asset or the person for whose benefit the transfer was made.
242.08(2)(am)2.2. An immediate or mediate transferee of the first transferee, other than any of the following:
242.08(2)(am)2.b.b. An immediate or mediate good faith transferee of a person described in subd. 2. a.
242.08(2)(bm)(bm) Recovery pursuant to s. 242.07 (1) (a) or (2) of or from the asset transferred or its proceeds, by levy or otherwise, is available only against a person described in par. (am) 1. or 2.
242.08(3)(3) If the judgment under sub. (2) is based upon the value of the asset transferred, the judgment must be for an amount equal to the value of the asset at the time of the transfer, subject to adjustment as the equities may require.
242.08(4)(4) Notwithstanding voidability of a transfer or an obligation under this chapter, a good-faith transferee or obligee is entitled, to the extent of the value given the debtor for the transfer or obligation, to any of the following:
242.08(5)(5) A transfer is not voidable under s. 242.04 (1) (b) or 242.05 if the transfer results from any of the following:
242.08(5)(a)(a) Termination of a lease upon default by the debtor when the termination is pursuant to the lease and applicable law.
242.08(5)(b)(b) Enforcement of a security interest in compliance with ch. 409, other than acceptance of collateral in full or partial satisfaction of the obligation it secures.
242.08(6)(a)(a) To the extent that the insider gave new value to or for the benefit of the debtor after the transfer was made unless the new value was secured by a valid lien;
242.08(6)(b)(b) If made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the insider; or
242.08(6)(c)(c) If made pursuant to a good-faith effort to rehabilitate the debtor and the transfer secured present value given for that purpose as well as an antecedent debt of the debtor.
242.08(7)(7) The following rules determine the burden of proving matters referred to in this section:
242.08(7)(a)(a) A party that seeks to invoke sub. (1), (4), (5), or (6) has the burden of proving the applicability of that subsection.
242.08(7)(b)(b) Except as otherwise provided in pars. (c) and (d), the creditor has the burden of proving each applicable element of sub. (2) or (3).
242.08(7)(c)(c) The transferee has the burden of proving the applicability to the transferee of sub. (2) (am) 2. a. or b.
242.08(7)(d)(d) A party that seeks adjustment under sub. (3) has the burden of proving the adjustment.
242.08(8)(8) The standard of proof required to establish matters referred to in this section is preponderance of the evidence.
242.08 AnnotationThe good-faith defense under sub.(1) applies only to claims made under s. 242.04 (1) (a), not claims under other sections. Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI 128, 276 Wis. 2d 312, 688 N.W.2d 439, 03-0750.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI 128 (Wis. 2004).
Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI 128 (Wis. 2004). “The Taylors would like to be able to use the defenses provided in Wis. Stat. § 242.08 (1), but these defenses by the explicit language of § 242.”
Veritas Steel, LLC v. Lunda Constr. Co., 2020 WI 3 (Wis. 2020). “620 does not support Lunda's fraud claim is reinforced by Wis. Stat. § 242.08 (5)(b). Statutory fraud, Wisconsin Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (WUFTA), is set out in Wis.”
In re Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 483 B.R. 855 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2012). “Parishes as Good Faith Transferees Section 242.08(1) of the Wisconsin Statutes provides a defense to a “person who took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value.”
Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI App 17 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “Finally, the Taylors assert that, under Wis. Stat. § 242.08 (1), their good faith in entering into the transaction with Vogt provides them a complete defense to the Bank's claim.”
Mann v. Hanil Bank, 920 F. Supp. 944 (E.D. Wis. 1996). “In opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion, the defendant banks argue that the plaintiffs cannot satisfy their summary judgment burden as to each element of the causes of action asserted. The Korean Banks have also invoked an affirmative defense: that they received the Longreen…”
Veritas Steel, LLC v. Lunda Constr. Co., 923 N.W.2d 181 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 242.08(5)(b). The Veritas entities submit that there is no genuine dispute that Lunda challenges the secured transaction that occurred when the Atlas affiliates, PDM, and PDM's owners entered into a strict foreclosure agreement, under which PDM transferred its assets to the…”
John M. Wirth v. Gwen A. Bosben (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “Gwen and B&G advanced the same argument that had been rejected in the judgment action: that the transferred property was exempt from execution under WIS.”
Long Lee, et al. v. Mailee Hang & Vang Tou Hang (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2026). “04 (1)(a) because she received an actual fraudulent transfer, and a state court enters judgment in favor of C and against D under Wis. Stat. § 242.08 (2). D already spent the money she received from P and does not have $10,000 to pay the judgment.”
Long Lee, Miana Lee, Unlimited Wealth, LLC, David Blong, & Mee Lee v. Mai L. Vang & Ue Yang (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2026). “) Second, the Debtors provided only the $1,000 escrow fraudulent transfer, and a state court enters judgment in favor of C and against D under Wis. Stat. § 242.08 (2). D already spent the money she received from P and does not have $10,000 to pay the judgment.”
— Wis. Stat. § 242.08(1) — 4 cases
Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI 128 (Wis. 2004). “The Taylors would like to be able to use the defenses provided in Wis. Stat. § 242.08 (1), but these defenses by the explicit language of § 242.”
In re Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 483 B.R. 855 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2012). “Parishes as Good Faith Transferees Section 242.08(1) of the Wisconsin Statutes provides a defense to a “person who took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value.”
Mann v. Hanil Bank, 920 F. Supp. 944 (E.D. Wis. 1996). “In opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion, the defendant banks argue that the plaintiffs cannot satisfy their summary judgment burden as to each element of the causes of action asserted. The Korean Banks have also invoked an affirmative defense: that they received the Longreen…”
Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI App 17 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “Finally, the Taylors assert that, under Wis. Stat. § 242.08 (1), their good faith in entering into the transaction with Vogt provides them a complete defense to the Bank's claim.”
— Wis. Stat. § 242.08(5)(b) — 2 cases
Veritas Steel, LLC v. Lunda Constr. Co., 2020 WI 3 (Wis. 2020). “620 does not support Lunda's fraud claim is reinforced by Wis. Stat. § 242.08 (5)(b). Statutory fraud, Wisconsin Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (WUFTA), is set out in Wis.”
Veritas Steel, LLC v. Lunda Constr. Co., 923 N.W.2d 181 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 242.08(5)(b). The Veritas entities submit that there is no genuine dispute that Lunda challenges the secured transaction that occurred when the Atlas affiliates, PDM, and PDM's owners entered into a strict foreclosure agreement, under which PDM transferred its assets to the…”
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.