Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 409.404 (2026)
Rights acquired by assignee; claims and defenses against assignee
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
409.404(1)(1) Assignee’s rights subject to terms, claims, and defenses; exceptions. Unless an account debtor has made an enforceable agreement not to assert defenses or claims, and subject to subs. (2) to (5), the rights of an assignee are subject to:
409.404(1)(a)(a) All terms of the agreement between the account debtor and assignor and any defense or claim in recoupment arising from the transaction that gave rise to the contract; and
409.404(1)(b)(b) Any other defense or claim of the account debtor against the assignor which accrues before the account debtor receives a notification of the assignment authenticated by the assignor or the assignee.
409.404(2)(2) Account debtor’s claim reduces amount owed to assignee. Subject to sub. (3) and except as otherwise provided in sub. (4), the claim of an account debtor against an assignor may be asserted against an assignee under sub. (1) only to reduce the amount the account debtor owes.
409.404(3)(3) Rule for individual under other law. This section is subject to law other than this chapter which establishes a different rule for an account debtor who is an individual and who incurred the obligation primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
409.404(4)(4) Omission of required statement in consumer transaction. In a consumer transaction, if a record evidences the account debtor’s obligation, law other than this chapter requires that the record include a statement to the effect that the account debtor’s recovery against an assignee with respect to claims and defenses against the assignor may not exceed amounts paid by the account debtor under the record, and the record does not include such a statement, the extent to which a claim of an account debtor against the assignor may be asserted against an assignee is determined as if the record had included such a statement.
409.404(5)(5) Inapplicability to health care insurance receivable. This section does not apply to an assignment of a health care insurance receivable.
409.404 AnnotationThere is no distinction between a party with a security interest in a debtor’s accounts receivable and a party who is an assignee of a debtor’s accounts receivable. Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185 (1990).
409.404 NoteNOTE: The above annotation cites to the pre-2001 Wis. Act 10 version of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Burlington Nat'l Bank v. Strauss, 184 N.W.2d 122 (Wis. 1971).
Burlington Nat'l Bank v. Strauss, 184 N.W.2d 122 (Wis. 1971). “Although it is true, the bank filed financing statements covering after-acquired property subsequent to its original filing on August 23, 1965, no termination statement was filed pursuant to sec. 409.404, Stats., 6 *276 to cut off the bank’s interest in the August 23, 1965,…”
Landmark Credit Union v. Ralph W. Streuly (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “” Relying on this language, Landmark argues that the judgment entered in favor of Landmark that established a total debt of $16,028 and Landmark’s right to sell the Ranger and obtain a deficiency judgment was entered both before any judgment was entered in favor of Streuly and…”
Landmark Credit Union v. Ralph W. Streuly (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “” Relying on this language, Landmark argues that the judgment entered in favor of Landmark that established a total debt of $16,028 and Landmark’s right to sell the Ranger and obtain a deficiency judgment was entered both before any judgment was entered in favor of Streuly and…”
— Wis. Stat. § 409.404(1) — 2 cases
Landmark Credit Union v. Ralph W. Streuly (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “” Relying on this language, Landmark argues that the judgment entered in favor of Landmark that established a total debt of $16,028 and Landmark’s right to sell the Ranger and obtain a deficiency judgment was entered both before any judgment was entered in favor of Streuly and…”
Landmark Credit Union v. Ralph W. Streuly (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “” Relying on this language, Landmark argues that the judgment entered in favor of Landmark that established a total debt of $16,028 and Landmark’s right to sell the Ranger and obtain a deficiency judgment was entered both before any judgment was entered in favor of Streuly and…”
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.