Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 403.309 (2026)
Enforcement of lost, destroyed or stolen instrument
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
403.309(1)(1) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if all of the following apply:
403.309(1)(a)(a) The person was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred.
403.309(1)(b)(b) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure.
403.309(1)(c)(c) The person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.
403.309(2)(2) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under sub. (1) shall prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, s. 403.308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2018–2024 · leading case: Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Klomsten, 911 N.W.2d 364 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Klomsten, 911 N.W.2d 364 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “See Wis. Stat. § 403.309 (lost, destroyed or stolen instruments) and Wis.”
Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. v. ST Paper, LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 403.309 (2021-22).1 We reject OFTI’s arguments and affirm.”
Bell v. PNC Bank Nat'l Ass'n (E.D. Wis. 2024). “Invoking Wis. Stat. § 403.309 , Bell filed suit in state court seeking a declaratory judgment that, based on these facts, his mortgage be “deemed satisfied.”
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Garcia, 538 P.3d 89 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 46-3-309 (West 1993); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 403.309 (West 1995); Wyo.”
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Bronson, 921 N.W.2d 17 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “Accordingly, we do not consider the Anderson affidavit in the course of our de novo review, but we express no view as to the use of the Anderson affidavit on remand.”
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Jeremy M. Bastin (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “” We understand them to be arguing that Lakeview fails to establish that it is the proper plaintiff, and we address their arguments in that context.”
— Wis. Stat. § 403.309(1) — 1 case
Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. v. ST Paper, LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 403.309 (2021-22).1 We reject OFTI’s arguments and affirm.”
— Wis. Stat. § 403.309(1)(a) — 1 case
Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. v. ST Paper, LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 403.309 (2021-22).1 We reject OFTI’s arguments and affirm.”
— Wis. Stat. § 403.309(1)(b) — 1 case
Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. v. ST Paper, LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 403.309 (2021-22).1 We reject OFTI’s arguments and affirm.”
— Wis. Stat. § 403.309(1)(c) — 1 case
Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. v. ST Paper, LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 403.309 (2021-22).1 We reject OFTI’s arguments and affirm.”
— Wis. Stat. § 403.309(2) — 1 case
Bell v. PNC Bank Nat'l Ass'n (E.D. Wis. 2024). “Invoking Wis. Stat. § 403.309 , Bell filed suit in state court seeking a declaratory judgment that, based on these facts, his mortgage be “deemed satisfied.”
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.