Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 403.308 (2026)
Proof of signatures and status as holder in due course
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
403.308(1)(1) In an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings. If the validity of a signature is denied in the pleadings, the burden of establishing validity is on the person claiming validity, but the signature is presumed to be authentic and authorized unless the action is to enforce the liability of the purported signer and the signer is dead or adjudicated incompetent at the time of trial of the issue of validity of the signature. If an action to enforce the instrument is brought against a person as the undisclosed principal of a person who signed the instrument as a party to the instrument, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the defendant is liable on the instrument as a represented person under s. 403.402 (1).
403.308(2)(2) If the validity of signatures is admitted or proved and there is compliance with sub. (1), a plaintiff producing the instrument is entitled to payment if the plaintiff proves entitlement to enforce the instrument under s. 403.301, unless the defendant proves a defense or claim in recoupment. If a defense or claim in recoupment is proved, the right to payment of the plaintiff is subject to the defense or claim, except to the extent the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff has rights of a holder in due course which are not subject to the defense or claim.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2024 · leading case: Schmid v. Bank of Am., N.A. (In re Schmid), 494 B.R. 737 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2013).
Schmid v. Bank of Am., N.A. (In re Schmid), 494 B.R. 737 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2013). “The Debtor has also failed to explain why the alleged improprieties concerning the signatures on the allonges are not covered by Wis. Stat. § 403.308 (1). That statute provides, inter alia, that a “signature is presumed to be authentic and authorized unless the action is to…”
Rinaldi v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 487 B.R. 516 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2013). “LEXIS 5065, at *21, citing Wis. Stat. § 403.308 (1). Second, the Debtors’ insinuation that Wells Fargo endorsed the Note after the foreclosure proceeding is irrelevant to the determination of the validity of the proof of claim.”
Dow Fam., LLC v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 2013 WI App 114 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “]" PHH therefore contends we must presume that the signatures of the parties who signed the two endorsements are authentic and that the signers had authority to make the endorsements.”
Rowe v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Rowe), 586 B.R. 466 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2018). “It notes Wis. Stat. § 403.308 (1) instructs: If the validity of a signature is denied in the pleadings, the burden of establishing validity is on the person claiming validity, but the signature is presumed to be authentic and authorized.”
Bank of New York Mellon v. Diane G. Cano (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “308(1) provides the following regarding the authenticity of a negotiable instrument: “In an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings.”
U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Emery, 932 N.W.2d 185 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 403.308(1) applies to the endorsement. 1 Emery, however, contends that he overcame the presumption of the endorsement's validity.”
— Wis. Stat. § 403.308(1) — 3 cases
Rowe v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Rowe), 586 B.R. 466 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2018). “It notes Wis. Stat. § 403.308 (1) instructs: If the validity of a signature is denied in the pleadings, the burden of establishing validity is on the person claiming validity, but the signature is presumed to be authentic and authorized.”
Bank of New York Mellon v. Diane G. Cano (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “308(1) provides the following regarding the authenticity of a negotiable instrument: “In an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings.”
U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Emery, 932 N.W.2d 185 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 403.308(1) applies to the endorsement. 1 Emery, however, contends that he overcame the presumption of the endorsement's validity.”
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.