Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 403.301 (2026)
Person entitled to enforce instrument
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
403.301403.301 Person entitled to enforce instrument. “Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means the holder of the instrument, a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument under s. 403.309 or 403.418 (4). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.
403.301 AnnotationPossession of the original note by counsel for the foreclosing bank in counsel’s capacity as legal representative of the bank does not impair the bank’s status as bearer. When counsel presents the original note to the circuit court, counsel is not acting to enforce the note himself, but on behalf of the client. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Wuensch, 2018 WI 35, 380 Wis. 2d 727, 911 N.W.2d 1, 15-0175. See also Federal National Mortgage Ass’n v. Thompson, 2018 WI 57, 381 Wis. 2d 609, 912 N.W.2d 364, 16-1496.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Thomas P. Wuensch, 911 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 2018).
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Thomas P. Wuensch, 911 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 2018). “" Wis. Stat. § 403.301 . A "holder," as relevant here, includes "the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable .”
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Klomsten, 911 N.W.2d 364 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “(a "holder" is "[t]he person in possession of a [note] that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession"). A note endorsed in blank is payable to the bearer and is negotiated by transfer of possession alone.”
Tissue Tech. LLC v. TAK Invs. LLC, 320 F. Supp. 3d 993 (E.D. Wis. 2018). “" Wis. Stat. § 403.301 . A "holder" of a negotiable instrument is "[t]he person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession.”
PNC Bank, N.A. v. Bierbrauer, 2013 WI App 11 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012). “The Bierbrauers argue Custodio's affidavit cannot establish that PNC is the holder of the note because it "does not establish that Ms.”
Dow Fam., LLC v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 2013 WI App 114 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “205 (2) (instrument endorsed in blank is payable to bearer); Wis. Stat. § 403.301 ("A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.”
In re Spencer, 531 B.R. 208 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2015). “This Court concluded, as did the state court, that PNC was the holder of the Note and entitled to enforce it under Section 403.301, Wis. Stats. The Court need not determine whether a beneficial owner exists and, if so, who it is.”
PNC Bank v. Sheila Spencer, 763 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2014). “Nora nonetheless insists that because Freddie Mac purchased the mortgage, it is the “real party in interest” and PNC’s suing in its own name was fraudulent.”
Schmid v. Bank of Am., N.A. (In re Schmid), 494 B.R. 737 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2013). “Section 403.301, Wis. Stat., states: “Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means the holder of the instrument, a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the…”
Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co. of Milwaukee v. Midland Nat'l Bank, 292 N.W.2d 591 (Wis. 1980). “20 Sec. 403.301, Stats., defines the rights of a holder.”
Kepler v. Olson (In Re Musurlian), 97 B.R. 985 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1989). “§ 403.301. Again, the case is distinguishable from Bonded Financial in that there were no restrictions on Mr.”
In re Thompson, 520 B.R. 713 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2014). “Schilling is not factually similar as it involved whether a student was a third-party beneficiary to an employment contract between a teacher and the school district.”
In Re Sheskey, 263 B.R. 264 (Bankr. D. Iowa 2001). “Such' a conclusion is con *268 sistent with the caution that the Court must take special care when scrutinizing loan transactions between close family members.”
— Wis. Stat. § 403.301(1) — 1 case
Mid Wisconsin Bank v. Forsgard Trading, Inc., 2003 WI App 186 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
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.