Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 705 — MULTIPLE-PARTY AND AGENCY ACCOUNTS; NONPROBATE TRANSFERS AT DEATH;
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 705.03 (2026)

Ownership during lifetime

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
705.03705.03 Ownership during lifetime. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent:
705.03(1)(1) A joint account belongs, during the lifetime of all parties, to the parties without regard to the proportion of their respective contributions to the sums on deposit and without regard to the number of signatures required for payment. The application of any sum withdrawn from a joint account by a party thereto shall not be subject to inquiry by any person, including any other party to the account and notwithstanding such other party’s minority or other disability, except that the spouse of one of the parties may recover under s. 766.70. No financial institution is liable to the spouse of a married person who is a party to a joint account for any sum withdrawn by any party to the account unless the financial institution violates a court order.
705.03(2)(2) A P.O.D. account belongs to the original payee during the original payee’s lifetime and not to the P.O.D. beneficiary or beneficiaries. If 2 or more parties are named as original payees, during their lifetimes rights as between them are governed by sub. (1); and a surviving original payee may revoke or amend the P.O.D. beneficiary designation at will.
705.03(3)(3) A marital account belongs, during the lifetime of both parties, to the parties without regard to the proportion of their respective contributions to the sums on deposit or to the number of signatures required for payment. A party to a marital account may name one or more P.O.D. beneficiaries for that party’s interest. No person may inquire about the application of any sums withdrawn from a marital account by a party to the account, except that if the parties are married to one another the other party to the account may recover under s. 766.70.
705.03 HistoryHistory: 1973 c. 291; 1983 a. 186; 1993 a. 486.
705.03 AnnotationWithdrawal of funds from a joint account by either party while both are alive may not later be subjected to inquiry by the other party’s estate. Wachniak v. Estate of Frank, 140 Wis. 2d 429, 410 N.W.2d 621 (Ct. App. 1987).
705.03 AnnotationThe transfer of separately owned property of one spouse into a joint account in both spouses’ names changes the character of the ownership interest of the entire property to marital property. Lloyd v. Lloyd, 170 Wis. 2d 240, 487 N.W.2d 647 (Ct. App. 1992).
705.03 AnnotationA guardian steps into the shoes of the ward and cannot prevent another party from withdrawing funds from a joint account. That a guardianship is established does not preclude a joint owner of an account from removing the funds. Family Services, Inc. v. Gary W., 2003 WI App 132, 265 Wis. 2d 681, 666 N.W.2d 84, 02-3139.
705.03 AnnotationA joint checking account established under this section prior to the execution of a power of attorney creates a presumption of donative intent. When an agent acting under a power of attorney transfers funds deposited by the principal from a joint account for the agent’s own use, a presumption of fraud is created. When these two conflicting and inconsistent presumptions coexist, the circuit court is free to make a determination based upon the facts and the credibility of the witnesses. Extrinsic evidence may be admissible to determine the intent of the parties. Russ v. Russ, 2007 WI 83, 302 Wis. 2d 264, 734 N.W.2d 874, 05-2492.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Russ Ex Rel. Schwartz v. Russ, 2007 WI 83 (Wis. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Russ Ex Rel. Schwartz v. Russ, 2007 WI 83 (Wis. 2007). · cites it 72× “10 , prevents the agent from using the principal's funds for the agent's personal use when such funds have been deposited into a joint checking account, inasmuch as joint account holders do not owe each other any duty under Wis. Stat. § 705.03 , and whether a POA constitutes…”
Randall v. Felt, 2002 WI App 157 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 11× “The trial court concluded that Wis. Stat. § 705.03 (1) was inapplicable because Lawrence did not withdraw funds from accounts he held jointly with Elva but simply added Randall as a third joint tenant on the accounts.”
Wachniak v. Est. of Frank, 410 N.W.2d 621 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 7× “We hold that sec. 705.03(1), Stats., precludes the estate’s inquiry about funds that Wachniak removed from the account that she held jointly with Emmy.”
Est. Sheppard Ex Rel. McMorrow v. Schleis, 2010 WI 32 (Wis. 2010). · cites it 3× “See Wis. Stat. §§ 705.03 (2), 705.26. 3 All subsequent references to the United States Code are to the 2006 official version unless otherwise indicated.”
Mueller v. Edwards, 2017 WI App 79 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Mueller, a neighbor and friend of Zernzach, claims that on March 6, 2015, Zernzach changed the beneficiary designation on the account by naming Mueller as sole beneficiary in a handwritten note (Exhibit 8) that Mueller found in Zernzach's safe after Zernzach's death.”
Holter v. Resop (In Re Holter), 401 B.R. 372 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2009). · cites it 3× “” Wis. Stat. § 705.03 (2). In addition, Wisconsin law provides that a party “means a person who, by the terms of an account, has a present right, subject to request, to payment therefrom other than as an agent.”
Wall v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 458 N.W.2d 814 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “Sec. 705.03(1), Stats. Both partners' capital accounts should have been credited; only Thomas's was.”
In Matter of Est. of Lloyd, 487 N.W.2d 644 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “The court of appeals held recently, however, that sec. 705.03(1), Stats., has abrogated the doctrine of severance and tracing for joint savings accounts.”
State v. Phyllis M. Schwersenska (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 30× “§ 705.03 and Russ in some detail in order to explain why we reject various arguments made by Schwersenska.”
In Re Gillette, 248 B.R. 845 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1999). “Wis. Stat. § 705.03 (1). The Court concludes that the Debt- or’s interest in the Strong Funds is the interest of a joint tenant under Wisconsin law.”
In Re Blatz, 58 B.R. 112 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1986). “4 Collier on Bankruptcy § 705.03(2) (15th Ed.1985) states that creditors’ committees "may appear before the bankruptcy court in a liquidation case.”
State v. Johnalee A. Kawalec (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 10× “DISCUSSION ¶5 Kawalec’s challenge centers on whether her trial counsel knew and raised appropriate arguments based on the law governing a conviction of theft by bailee under WIS.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 705.03(1) — 8 cases
Randall v. Felt, 2002 WI App 157 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “The trial court concluded that Wis. Stat. § 705.03 (1) was inapplicable because Lawrence did not withdraw funds from accounts he held jointly with Elva but simply added Randall as a third joint tenant on the accounts.”
Wachniak v. Est. of Frank, 410 N.W.2d 621 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “We hold that sec. 705.03(1), Stats., precludes the estate’s inquiry about funds that Wachniak removed from the account that she held jointly with Emmy.”
Wall v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 458 N.W.2d 814 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “Sec. 705.03(1), Stats. Both partners' capital accounts should have been credited; only Thomas's was.”
In Matter of Est. of Lloyd, 487 N.W.2d 644 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “The court of appeals held recently, however, that sec. 705.03(1), Stats., has abrogated the doctrine of severance and tracing for joint savings accounts.”
State v. Phyllis M. Schwersenska (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 705.03 and Russ in some detail in order to explain why we reject various arguments made by Schwersenska.”
— Wis. Stat. § 705.03(2) — 5 cases
Est. Sheppard Ex Rel. McMorrow v. Schleis, 2010 WI 32 (Wis. 2010). “See Wis. Stat. §§ 705.03 (2), 705.26. 3 All subsequent references to the United States Code are to the 2006 official version unless otherwise indicated.”
Holter v. Resop (In Re Holter), 401 B.R. 372 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2009). “” Wis. Stat. § 705.03 (2). In addition, Wisconsin law provides that a party “means a person who, by the terms of an account, has a present right, subject to request, to payment therefrom other than as an agent.”
In Re Blatz, 58 B.R. 112 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1986). “4 Collier on Bankruptcy § 705.03(2) (15th Ed.1985) states that creditors’ committees "may appear before the bankruptcy court in a liquidation case.”
Tim J. Fruit v. Bonnie J. Fruit (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
Mary Taps v. The Est. of Martin Zolondick (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
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.