Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 404.402 (2026)
Bank’s liability to customer for wrongful dishonor; time of determining insufficiency of account
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
404.402404.402 Bank’s liability to customer for wrongful dishonor; time of determining insufficiency of account.
404.402(1)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a payer bank wrongfully dishonors an item if it dishonors an item that is properly payable, but a bank may dishonor an item that would create an overdraft unless it has agreed to pay the overdraft.
404.402(2)(2) A payer bank is liable to its customer for damages proximately caused by the wrongful dishonor of an item. Liability is limited to actual damages proved and may include damages for an arrest or prosecution of the customer or other consequential damages. Whether any consequential damages are proximately caused by the wrongful dishonor is a question of fact to be determined in each case.
404.402(3)(3) A payer bank’s determination of the customer’s account balance on which a decision to dishonor for insufficiency of available funds is based may be made at any time between the time the item is received by the payer bank and the time that the payer bank returns the item or gives notice in lieu of return, and no more than one determination need be made. If, at the election of the payer bank, a subsequent balance determination is made for the purpose of reevaluating the bank’s decision to dishonor the item, the account balance at that time is determinative of whether a dishonor for insufficiency of available funds is wrongful.
404.402 AnnotationAbsent an agreement to the contrary, a bank retains discretion to dishonor a check creating an overdraft even when the bank has previously honored that customer’s overdrafts. Schaller v. Marine National Bank of Neenah, 131 Wis. 2d 389, 388 N.W.2d 645 (Ct. App. 1986).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: State v. Shane Allan Stroik, 2022 WI App 11 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Shane Allan Stroik, 2022 WI App 11 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “23 As the Wisconsin treatise on evidence explains, “[i]t is one thing to be solicitous toward the use of such proof [of other acts evidence for permissible purposes]; it is quite another to turn a blind eye toward its misuse as bad character/propensity evidence.”
Pulaski State Bank v. Kalbe, 364 N.W.2d 162 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “Sections 404.402 and 404.406(3), Stats. The absence of such a provision in sec.”
State v. Clinton D. Clucas (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “” 7 BLINKA, supra § 404.402 (4th ed. Supp. 2019); see also State v.”
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.