Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 403.306 (2026)
Claims to an instrument
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
403.306403.306 Claims to an instrument. A person taking an instrument, other than a person having rights of a holder in due course, is subject to a claim of a property or possessory right in the instrument or its proceeds, including a claim to rescind a negotiation and to recover the instrument or its proceeds. A person having rights of a holder in due course takes free of the claim to the instrument.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1968–2008 · leading case: United Catholic Par. Schs. of Beaver Dam Educ. Ass'n v. Card Servs. Ctr., 2001 WI App 229 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
United Catholic Par. Schs. of Beaver Dam Educ. Ass'n v. Card Servs. Ctr., 2001 WI App 229 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “307 sets forth a type of Wis. Stat. § 403.306 claim referenced in Wis.”
In Re Est. of Balkus v. Sec. First Nat'l Bank of Sheboygan Trust Dep't, 381 N.W.2d 593 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “Constructive Delivery Since Vesely is not a holder in due course of the notes and thus takes the notes subject to the defenses asserted by the personal representative, see sec. 403.306, Stats., we now look to the defense of nondelivery asserted by the personal representative.”
Willowglen Academy - Wisconsin, Inc. v. Connelly Interiors, Inc., 2008 WI App 35 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “), Wis. Stat. § 403.306 , and the U.F.A., Wis.”
Bank of Com. v. PAINE, WEBBER, J. & C., 158 N.W.2d 350 (Wis. 1968). “Unless he has the rights of a holder in due course any person takes the instrument subject to: “(1) All valid claims to it on the part of any person; and “(2) All defenses of any party which would be available in an action on a simple contract; and “(3) The defenses of want or…”
Wisconsin Bankers Ass'n v. Mut. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 275 N.W.2d 130 (Wis. Ct. App. 1978). “29 Sec. 403.306, Stats. “As between the original parties there is no difference between a note payable to X and one payable to the order of X; the difference appears only after the note comes into the hands of a holder in due course, at which time the *502 latter note, being…”
Lakeshore Com. Fin. Corp. v. Bradford Arms Corp., 173 N.W.2d 165 (Wis. 1970). “However, Lakeshore is also a holder and the liability of a holder is detailed in sec. 403.306, Stats.: “Rights of one not holder in due course.”
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.