Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 244.16 (2026)
Judicial relief
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
244.16(1)(1) The following persons may petition the circuit court of the county where the principal is present or of the county of the principal’s legal residence to construe a power of attorney or review the agent’s conduct, and grant appropriate relief:
244.16(1)(g)(g) A person named as a beneficiary to receive any property, benefit, or contractual right on the principal’s death or as a beneficiary of a trust created by or for the principal that has a financial interest in the principal’s estate.
244.16(1)(h)(h) A governmental agency having regulatory authority to protect the welfare of the principal.
244.16(1)(i)(i) The principal’s caregiver or another person that demonstrates sufficient interest in the principal’s welfare.
244.16(2)(2) Upon motion by the principal, the court shall dismiss a petition filed under this section, unless the court finds that the principal lacks capacity to revoke the agent’s authority or the power of attorney.
244.16 AnnotationThe relief granted under sub. (1) must fit the purpose of the action; it is not a broad invitation to the court to wade into the private attorney-client arrangements of the parties unless it is within the realm of construing a power of attorney or reviewing the conduct of an agent. The circuit court exceeded its authority under sub. (1) because the court’s order limiting attorneys’ fees was not aimed at remedying the attorney-in-fact’s actions as attorney-in-fact. Kelly v. Brown, 2016 WI App 31, 368 Wis. 2d 353, 879 N.W.2d 127, 15-0777.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case: Kelly v. Brown, 2016 WI App 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016).
Kelly v. Brown, 2016 WI App 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “The circuit court concluded the underlying action was moot, but nonetheless entered an order limiting Kelly's attorney's fees to just $6000, asserting it had the authority to do so under Wis. Stat. § 244.16 (1) (2013-14). 1 Kelly and his firm — John M.”
Thompson v. Thompson, 926 N.W.2d 506 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “Although Mark's Wis. Stat. § 244.16 petition did purport to seek a determination of Jeffrey's "breach or performance of his fiduciary duty as Trustee or Successor Trustee" of the revocable trust, briefing on jurisdiction ordered by the circuit court makes clear that Mark was…”
Lori A. Murphy v. Daniel R. Maynard (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 244.16 (2023-24)1 terminated upon the death of the principal.”
Tim J. Fruit v. Bonnie J. Fruit (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 244.16(1) which provides in pertinent part: “The following persons may petition the circuit court of the county where the principal is present or of the county of the principal’s legal residence to construe a power of attorney or review the agent’s conduct, and grant…”
— Wis. Stat. § 244.16(1) — 4 cases
Kelly v. Brown, 2016 WI App 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “The circuit court concluded the underlying action was moot, but nonetheless entered an order limiting Kelly's attorney's fees to just $6000, asserting it had the authority to do so under Wis. Stat. § 244.16 (1) (2013-14). 1 Kelly and his firm — John M.”
Tim J. Fruit v. Bonnie J. Fruit (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 244.16(1) which provides in pertinent part: “The following persons may petition the circuit court of the county where the principal is present or of the county of the principal’s legal residence to construe a power of attorney or review the agent’s conduct, and grant…”
Lori A. Murphy v. Daniel R. Maynard (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 244.16 (2023-24)1 terminated upon the death of the principal.”
Thompson v. Thompson, 926 N.W.2d 506 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “Although Mark's Wis. Stat. § 244.16 petition did purport to seek a determination of Jeffrey's "breach or performance of his fiduciary duty as Trustee or Successor Trustee" of the revocable trust, briefing on jurisdiction ordered by the circuit court makes clear that Mark was…”
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.