Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 706.02 (2026)

Formal requisites

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

706.02706.02 Formal requisites.

706.02(1)(1) Transactions under s. 706.001 (1) shall not be valid unless evidenced by a conveyance that satisfies all of the following:

706.02(1)(a)(a) Identifies the parties; and

706.02(1)(b)(b) Identifies the land; and

706.02(1)(c)(c) Identifies the interest conveyed, and any material term, condition, reservation, exception or contingency upon which the interest is to arise, continue or be extinguished, limited or encumbered; and

706.02(1)(d)(d) Is signed by or on behalf of each of the grantors; and

706.02(1)(e)(e) Is signed by or on behalf of all parties, if a lease or contract to convey; and

706.02(1)(f)(f) Is signed, or joined in by separate conveyance, by or on behalf of each spouse, if the conveyance alienates any interest of a married person in a homestead under s. 706.01 (7) except conveyances between spouses, but on a purchase money mortgage pledging that property as security only the purchaser need sign the mortgage; and

706.02(1)(g)(g) Is delivered. Except under s. 706.09, a conveyance delivered upon a parol limitation or condition shall be subject thereto only if the issue arises in an action or proceeding commenced within 5 years following the date of such conditional delivery; however, when death or survival of a grantor is made such a limiting or conditioning circumstance, the conveyance shall be subject thereto only if the issue arises in an action or proceeding commenced within such 5-year period and commenced prior to such death.

706.02(2)(2) A conveyance may satisfy any of the foregoing requirements of this section:

706.02(2)(a)(a) By specific reference, in a writing signed as required, to extrinsic writings in existence when the conveyance is executed; or

706.02(2)(b)(b) By physical annexation of several writings to one another, with the mutual consent of the parties; or

706.02(2)(c)(c) By several writings which show expressly on their faces that they refer to the same transaction, and which the parties have mutually acknowledged by conduct or agreement as evidences of the transaction.

706.02 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 211 s. 126; 1977 c. 177; 1999 a. 85.

706.02 AnnotationThere can be no waiver of the necessity of a spouse’s joining in a deed of a homestead and no finding of agency will sustain the deed. Wangen v. Leum, 46 Wis. 2d 60, 174 N.W.2d 266 (1970).

706.02 AnnotationIn pleading a contract that is subject to the statute of frauds, it is not necessary to allege facts to establish that the contract complies with the statute or is within its exceptions. Ritterbusch v. Ritterbusch, 50 Wis. 2d 633, 184 N.W.2d 865 (1971).

706.02 AnnotationAn option to purchase land must be in writing and cannot be modified orally, but a seller may orally agree to accept payment in full rather than in installments. Kubnick v. Bohne, 56 Wis. 2d 527, 202 N.W.2d 400 (1972).

706.02 AnnotationThe test of undue influence to set aside a will is also applicable in order to void an inter vivos transfer due to undue influence. Ward v. Ward, 62 Wis. 2d 543, 215 N.W.2d 3 (1974).

706.02 AnnotationA general rule used in construing conveyance instruments as to whether they comply with the statute of frauds is to determine if there is ambiguity or uncertainty as to some of the essential elements of the documents. If so, extrinsic evidence may be resorted to in order to determine what was the real agreement or intention of the parties. However, the document itself must provide some foundation, link, or key to the extrinsic evidence. Edlebeck v. Barnes, 63 Wis. 2d 240, 216 N.W.2d 551 (1974).

706.02 AnnotationAn oral contract for the conveyance of an interest in land is void unless there is a memorandum that conforms to the statute of frauds. Trimble v. Wisconsin Builders, Inc., 72 Wis. 2d 435, 241 N.W.2d 409 (1976).

706.02 AnnotationWhen a contract for the sale of land with an indefinite description is taken out of the statute of frauds by part performance, extrinsic evidence admissible but for the statute of frauds may be introduced to provide the description. Clay v. Bradley, 74 Wis. 2d 153, 246 N.W.2d 142 (1976).

706.02 AnnotationThe question under sub. (1) (b) of whether property boundaries are identified to a reasonable certainty is for the jury to determine with the aid of all competent extrinsic evidence. Zapuchlak v. Hucal, 82 Wis. 2d 184, 262 N.W.2d 514 (1978).

706.02 AnnotationThe homestead defense under sub. (1) (f) is not defeated by s. 706.04, but a tort claim may exist against a signing spouse who misrepresents the non-signing spouse’s acquiescence. Glinski v. Sheldon, 88 Wis. 2d 509, 276 N.W.2d 815 (1979).

706.02 AnnotationThe defense of the statute of frauds is waived if not raised in the trial court. Hine v. Vilter, 88 Wis. 2d 645, 277 N.W.2d 772 (1979).

706.02 AnnotationA mortgage fraudulently executed by the use of a forged signature of one grantor was wholly void. State Bank of Drummond v. Christophersen, 93 Wis. 2d 148, 286 N.W.2d 547 (1980).

706.02 AnnotationWhen a contract for the sale of land and personalty is not divisible, the contract is entirely void if this section is not satisfied. Spensley Feeds, Inc. v. Livingston Feed & Lumber, Inc., 128 Wis. 2d 279, 381 N.W.2d 601 (Ct. App. 1985).

706.02 AnnotationThe homestead signature requirement of sub. (1) (f) must be waived affirmatively by actual signing of the mortgage. A failure to plead the statute of frauds as an affirmative defense did not constitute a waiver. Weber v. Weber, 176 Wis. 2d 1085, 501 N.W.2d 413 (1993).

706.02 AnnotationA quitclaim deed of a married couple’s homestead from one spouse to the other is not valid to alienate the grantor’s interest in the property in any way that would eliminate either spouse’s contractual obligations under a mortgage containing a valid dragnet clause. Schmidt v. Waukesha State Bank, 204 Wis. 2d 426, 555 N.W.2d 655 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-1850.

706.02 AnnotationAn in-court oral stipulation could create a mortgage interest in property, but a homestead conveyance must bear the conveyors’ signatures. Because the stipulation lacked signatures, it was not a mortgage that could defeat the homestead exemption under s. 815.20. Equitable Bank, S.S.B. v. Chabron, 2000 WI App 210, 238 Wis. 2d 708, 618 N.W.2d 262, 99-2639.

706.02 AnnotationIf the language within the four corners of a deed is unambiguous, the court need look no further for the parties’ intent. Eckendorf v. Austin, 2000 WI App 219, 239 Wis. 2d 69, 619 N.W.2d 129, 00-0713.

706.02 AnnotationSpouses may affirmatively waive the homestead protection in sub. (1) (f) in a premarital agreement. Jones v. Estate of Jones, 2002 WI 61, 253 Wis. 2d 158, 646 N.W.2d 280, 01-1025.

706.02 AnnotationA conveyance that “identifies the land” as required by sub. (1) means the conveyance must identify the property with “reasonable certainty.” “Reasonable certainty” means that by the aid of the facts and circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the court can with reasonable certainty determine the land which is to be conveyed. It does not, however, necessarily require a legal description. Anderson v. Quinn, 2007 WI App 260, 306 Wis. 2d 686, 743 N.W.2d 492, 06-2462.

706.02 AnnotationParol evidence in the context of the statute of frauds does not operate to supply fatal omissions of a writing but rather to render the writing intelligible. A clear distinction must be drawn between the proper admission of extrinsic evidence for the purpose of applying the description to identified property versus the improper supplying of a description or adding to a description that on its face is insufficient. As the description “remaining acreage” was, on its face, insufficient to identify the specific property, parol evidence would not be admissible under the statute of frauds. 303, LLC v. Born, 2012 WI App 115, 344 Wis. 2d 364, 823 N.W.2d 269, 11-2368.

706.02 AnnotationThe mortgage in this case was equitably assigned to the holder of the original note by operation of law upon transfer of the note. Therefore, equitable assignment of the mortgage was not barred by the statute of frauds under this section. Dow Family, LLC v. PHH Mortgage Corp., 2014 WI 56, 354 Wis. 2d 796, 848 N.W.2d 728, 13-0221.

706.02 AnnotationMere ambiguity does not render a contract unenforceable vis-à-vis the statute of frauds. Rather, when a conveyance includes a description of property that can be applied in multiple ways, the statute of frauds requires that parol evidence of intent be connected in some way to the language of the agreement. Prezioso v. Aerts, 2014 WI App 126, 358 Wis. 2d 714, 858 N.W.2d 386, 13-2762.

706.02 AnnotationWhen the only signer of two mortgages was “a married person,” at the time he executed the mortgages, and he had an interest in the homestead that was alienated by those conveyances, under the plain language of sub. (1) (f) the mortgage transactions were invalid from the start because they were not “signed, or joined in by separate conveyance, by or on behalf of each spouse.” As such, whether the non-signing spouse had waived her interest in the homestead property by deeding the property to the signing spouse did not need to be determined. U.S. Bank National Association v. Stehno, 2017 WI App 57, 378 Wis. 2d 179, 902 N.W.2d 270, 16-0193.

706.02 AnnotationThe statute of frauds does not bar a tort action for intentional misrepresentation. Winger v. Winger, 82 F.3d 140 (1996).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 107 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Jones v. Est. of Jones, 2002 WI 61 (Wis. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jones v. Est. of Jones, 2002 WI 61 (Wis. 2002). · cites it 27× “Mary Ann claims that the home is homestead property, and Robert's failure to sign the second *161 warranty deed makes it invalid under the statute of frauds, Wis. Stat. § 706.02 (1997-1998). 1 ¶ 2. We first conclude that the property is homestead property.”

U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Stehno, 2017 WI App 57 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 24× “" Wells is correct, and we further conclude the December 2002 mortgage was void for the same reason.”

McLellan v. Charly, 2008 WI App 126 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 9× “See Wis. Stat. § 706.02 . In addition, while Bratt applied the common law doctrine of equitable estoppel, Wis.”

Ott v. Peppertree Resort Villas, Inc., 2006 WI App 77 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 9× “03 (2), which, under Wis. Stat. § 706.02 (1), must be "signed by or on behalf of' the grantor in order to be valid.”

Resop v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank (In Re McClearn), 379 B.R. 831 (W.D. Wis. 2007). · cites it 19× “The trustee thinks the mortgage is voidable under Wisconsin law, specifically Wis. Stat. § 706.02 (1)(f), a statute of frauds, which provides that transactions involving real property are not valid unless evidenced by a conveyance that is “signed, or joined in by separate…”

Dow Fam., LLC v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 2013 WI App 114 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “Instead, PHH contends the circuit court prop *426 erly ruled that PHH did not need to prove a written assignment of mortgage because, under the doctrine of equitable assignment, the mortgage was automatically assigned to PHH when PHH became the holder of the note.”

Robert L. Kimble v. Land Concepts, Inc., 2014 WI 21 (Wis. 2014). · cites it 4× “8 Specifically, Schenker wrote that the document recording the easement failed to identify the property benefitted, and thus failed to comply with Wis. Stat. § 706.02 (1) (2009-10). All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2009-10 version unless otherwise…”

Matter of Howe, 20 B.R. 938 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1982). · cites it 27× “However, two cases involving solely owned *941 property, which arose under Wis.Stat. § 706.02’s predecessor, provide useful guidance.”

Spensley Feeds, Inc. v. Livingston Feed & Lumber, Inc., 381 N.W.2d 601 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 6× “00 or more; and sec. 706.02, Stats. 3 transactions involving interests in land.”

Smiljanic v. Niedermeyer, 2007 WI App 182 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “The court concluded that under Wis. Stat. § 706.02 (1), there was not a valid conveyance of the lake easement to Gertrude Kozlowski because there was no conveyance that described the easement and there was no signature by either Friedman and Fox or by someone on their behalf.”

Assocs. Fin. Servs. Co. of Wisconsin v. Brown, 2002 WI App 300 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “5 The trial court also determined that the quitclaim deed was an invalid conveyance because it did not accurately identify the land conveyed pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 706.02 (1)(b). In light of our resolution of this case on other grounds, we will not discuss this issue.”

Wynhoff v. Vogt, 2000 WI App 57 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “The court then considered Wisconsin's statute of frauds, Wis. Stat. § 706.02 , and in particular paragraph (l)(c), which requires a real estate transaction to be evidenced by a conveyance that "[identifies the interest conveyed, and any material term, condition, reservation,…”

Show all 107 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(1) — 23 cases

Spensley Feeds, Inc. v. Livingston Feed & Lumber, Inc., 381 N.W.2d 601 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “00 or more; and sec. 706.02, Stats. 3 transactions involving interests in land.”

Ott v. Peppertree Resort Villas, Inc., 2006 WI App 77 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “03 (2), which, under Wis. Stat. § 706.02 (1), must be "signed by or on behalf of' the grantor in order to be valid.”

Kepler v. Steele (In Re Steele), 27 B.R. 474 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1983).

Elfelt v. Cooper, 485 N.W.2d 56 (Wis. 1992).

Hine v. Vilter, 277 N.W.2d 772 (Wis. 1979).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(1)(a) — 2 cases

Wolter v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 605 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).

Padgett v. Szczesny, 405 N.W.2d 714 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(1)(b) — 7 cases

MPI Wright LLC v. Goodin Co. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

Padgett v. Szczesny, 405 N.W.2d 714 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).

Jeff Veach v. Charles Barber (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).

Karen Zahran v. Christine Rademacher (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).

John P. Werler v. Douglas Berends (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(1)(c) — 5 cases

Jody Boquist v. Jane Ballmer (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

Padgett v. Szczesny, 405 N.W.2d 714 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).

MPI Wright LLC v. Goodin Co. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

Jeff Veach v. Charles Barber (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).

Karen Zahran v. Christine Rademacher (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(1)(d) — 5 cases

R.C.R. Corp. v. Bank of Middleton (In re R.C.R. Corp.), 58 B.R. 291 (W.D. Wis. 1986).

Matter of RCR Corp., 58 B.R. 291 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1986).

Keith M. Kuzelka Trust v. Dora E. Kuzelka (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).

Christine T. Delfeld v. Steven D. Delfeld (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).

Roger L. Thompson v. Robert Popple (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(1)(e) — 3 cases

D Kayseri LLC - c/o Arda Yanik v. 510 Main Street LLC - c/o Mary Wolske (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).

Roger L. Thompson v. Robert Popple (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).

Wisconsin Real Est. Co. LLC v. Charles W. Huelsbeck (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(1)(f) — 8 cases

Jones v. Est. of Jones, 2002 WI 61 (Wis. 2002). “Mary Ann claims that the home is homestead property, and Robert's failure to sign the second *161 warranty deed makes it invalid under the statute of frauds, Wis. Stat. § 706.02 (1997-1998). 1 ¶ 2. We first conclude that the property is homestead property.”

Elfelt v. Cooper, 485 N.W.2d 56 (Wis. 1992).

Schapiro v. Sec. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 441 N.W.2d 241 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).

Resop v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank (In Re McClearn), 379 B.R. 831 (W.D. Wis. 2007). “The trustee thinks the mortgage is voidable under Wisconsin law, specifically Wis. Stat. § 706.02 (1)(f), a statute of frauds, which provides that transactions involving real property are not valid unless evidenced by a conveyance that is “signed, or joined in by separate…”

Johnson v. Miller, 459 N.W.2d 886 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(1)(g) — 1 case

Daniel Kiersten v. Russell G. Kuenzi (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(2) — 6 cases

Negus v. Madison Gas & Elec. Co., 331 N.W.2d 658 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983).

D Kayseri LLC - c/o Arda Yanik v. 510 Main Street LLC - c/o Mary Wolske (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).

MPI Wright LLC v. Goodin Co. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

Jody Boquist v. Jane Ballmer (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

Stanfield v. First Midwest Bank (In Re Stanfield), 408 B.R. 229 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2009).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(2)(a) — 3 cases

D Kayseri LLC - c/o Arda Yanik v. 510 Main Street LLC - c/o Mary Wolske (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).

Jody Boquist v. Jane Ballmer (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

Stanfield v. First Midwest Bank (In Re Stanfield), 408 B.R. 229 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2009).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(2)(b) — 2 cases

D Kayseri LLC - c/o Arda Yanik v. 510 Main Street LLC - c/o Mary Wolske (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).

Stanfield v. First Midwest Bank (In Re Stanfield), 408 B.R. 229 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2009).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(2)(c) — 2 cases

D Kayseri LLC - c/o Arda Yanik v. 510 Main Street LLC - c/o Mary Wolske (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).

Stanfield v. First Midwest Bank (In Re Stanfield), 408 B.R. 229 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2009).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(a) — 1 case

Kevin Fiess v. Russell L. Kuhl (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(c) — 1 case

Gaughan v. New Am. Funding LLC (E.D. Wis. 2024).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(l)(b) — 1 case

Wolter v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 605 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(l)(c) — 3 cases

Wynhoff v. Vogt, 2000 WI App 57 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “The court then considered Wisconsin's statute of frauds, Wis. Stat. § 706.02 , and in particular paragraph (l)(c), which requires a real estate transaction to be evidenced by a conveyance that "[identifies the interest conveyed, and any material term, condition, reservation,…”

Wolter v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 605 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).

Lucareli v. Lucareli, 2000 WI App 133 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(l)(d) — 2 cases

Wolter v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 605 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).

R.C.R. Corp. v. Bank of Middleton (In re R.C.R. Corp.), 58 B.R. 291 (W.D. Wis. 1986).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(l)(e) — 2 cases

Wolter v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 605 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).

Equitable Bank, S.S.B. v. Chabron, 2000 WI App 210 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(l)(f) — 10 cases

U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Stehno, 2017 WI App 57 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “" Wells is correct, and we further conclude the December 2002 mortgage was void for the same reason.”

Matter of Howe, 20 B.R. 938 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1982). “However, two cases involving solely owned *941 property, which arose under Wis.Stat. § 706.02’s predecessor, provide useful guidance.”

Resop v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank (In Re McClearn), 379 B.R. 831 (W.D. Wis. 2007). “The trustee thinks the mortgage is voidable under Wisconsin law, specifically Wis. Stat. § 706.02 (1)(f), a statute of frauds, which provides that transactions involving real property are not valid unless evidenced by a conveyance that is “signed, or joined in by separate…”

Jones v. Est. of Jones, 2002 WI 61 (Wis. 2002). “Mary Ann claims that the home is homestead property, and Robert's failure to sign the second *161 warranty deed makes it invalid under the statute of frauds, Wis. Stat. § 706.02 (1997-1998). 1 ¶ 2. We first conclude that the property is homestead property.”

Schapiro v. Sec. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 441 N.W.2d 241 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).

— Wis. Stat. § 706.02(l)(g) — 1 case

Wolter v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 605 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).

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.