Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 706.04 (2026)
Equitable relief
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
706.04706.04 Equitable relief. A transaction which does not satisfy one or more of the requirements of s. 706.02 may be enforceable in whole or in part under doctrines of equity, provided all of the elements of the transaction are clearly and satisfactorily proved and, in addition:
706.04(2)(2) The party against whom enforcement is sought would be unjustly enriched if enforcement of the transaction were denied; or
706.04(3)(3) The party against whom enforcement is sought is equitably estopped from asserting the deficiency. A party may be so estopped whenever, pursuant to the transaction and in good faith reliance thereon, the party claiming estoppel has changed his or her position to the party’s substantial detriment under circumstances such that the detriment so incurred may not be effectively recovered otherwise than by enforcement of the transaction, and either:
706.04(3)(a)(a) The grantee has been admitted into substantial possession or use of the premises or has been permitted to retain such possession or use after termination of a prior right thereto; or
706.04(3)(b)(b) The detriment so incurred was incurred with the prior knowing consent or approval of the party sought to be estopped.
706.04 AnnotationA partnership created to deal in real estate is void unless conforming to the statute of frauds unless all parties have performed the contract, thus indicating their acquiescence in its terms. Schaefer v. Schaefer, 72 Wis. 2d 600, 241 N.W.2d 607 (1976).
706.04 AnnotationIn an equity action seeking the conveyance of a farm under an oral agreement, the trial court properly ordered the conveyance under sub. (3) when the tenants gave up plans to build a home on other property, planted crops on the farm, and painted the interior of the farmhouse. Krauza v. Mauritz, 78 Wis. 2d 276, 254 N.W.2d 251 (1977).
706.04 AnnotationPersonal services to a vendor in reliance upon an oral agreement are not enough, standing alone, to constitute part performance. Jorgensen v. Ketter, 82 Wis. 2d 80, 260 N.W.2d 665 (1978).
706.04 AnnotationUnder sub. (3) (a), a grantee with knowledge of the facts giving rise to equitable estoppel against the grantor takes title subject to the estoppel. Brevig v. Webster, 88 Wis. 2d 165, 277 N.W.2d 321 (Ct. App. 1979).
706.04 AnnotationThe homestead defense under s. 706.02 (1) (f) is not defeated by this section, 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).
706.04 AnnotationFailure to execute a document can be cured under this section. Discussing the “unclean hands” defense. Security Pacific National Bank v. Ginkowski, 140 Wis. 2d 332, 410 N.W.2d 589 (Ct. App. 1987).
706.04 AnnotationOnce a deed has been properly executed and recorded, a court, in equity, may not alter the document when a party later expresses a different intent than was memorialized. Wynhoff v. Vogt, 2000 WI App 57, 233 Wis. 2d 673, 608 N.W.2d 400, 99-0103.
706.04 AnnotationThis section does not refer to deficiencies under s. 706.03. Triple Interest, Inc. v. Motel 6, Inc., 414 F. Supp. 589 (1976).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Joseph Gene Thompson v. Susanne Rose Ouellette, 2023 WI App 7 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
Joseph Gene Thompson v. Susanne Rose Ouellette, 2023 WI App 7 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 706.04. After the circuit court dismissed that claim, Ouellette raised three issues on appeal.”
McLellan v. Charly, 2008 WI App 126 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “In addition, while Bratt applied the common law doctrine of equitable estoppel, Wis. Stat. § 706.04 (3) (enacted by 1969 Wis.”
Spensley Feeds, Inc. v. Livingston Feed & Lumber, Inc., 381 N.W.2d 601 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “*288 The two requirements under sec. 706.04, Stats., which must be met to qualify a real estate transaction for the equitable alternative are: (1) the elements of the transaction must be clearly and satisfactorily proved, and (2) the transaction must fall within one of three…”
Halverson v. River Falls Youth Hockey Ass'n, 593 N.W.2d 895 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “07 applies "in the situation where you are dealing with repair obligations .”
Sec. Pac. Nat'l Bank v. Ginkowski, 410 N.W.2d 589 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “We conclude that a failure to execute a document can be cured by a sec. 706.04, Stats., equitable relief proceeding and that sufficient evidence in the record supports the trial court’s finding that Ginkowski intended to execute the mortgage.”
Nelson v. Albrechtson, 287 N.W.2d 811 (Wis. 1980). “Appellants contend that the trial court erred in rendering summary judgment in favor of respondents because there are genuine issues of material fact which if resolved in their favor would entitle them to relief under sec.”
Wynhoff v. Vogt, 2000 WI App 57 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “The court then proceeded to Wis. Stat. § 706.04 , the equitable relief section of Wis.”
Brevig v. Webster, 277 N.W.2d 321 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). “It is not for the court to impose its notion of a “reasonable” time on parties to a private contract who have demonstrated by their conduct what is reasonable between them.”
Triple Interest, Inc. v. Motel 6, Inc., 414 F. Supp. 589 (W.D. Wis. 1976). “§ 706.04. These arguments are unpersuasive.”
Krauza v. Mauritz, 254 N.W.2d 251 (Wis. 1977). “Where no writing exists, as in the present case, there may still be a valid agreement for the transfer of land if provisions of sec. 706.04, Stats., are met: “706.0k Equitable relief.”
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Stehno, 2017 WI App 57 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “2d 815 (1979), the court rejected a claim that equitable remedies in Wis. Stat. § 706.04 trump the homestead protection of § 706.”
Gillespie v. Dunlap, 373 N.W.2d 61 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “1 Sec. 706.04, Stats., provides: Equitable relief.”
— Wis. Stat. § 706.04(1) — 6 cases
Joseph Gene Thompson v. Susanne Rose Ouellette, 2023 WI App 7 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 706.04. After the circuit court dismissed that claim, Ouellette raised three issues on appeal.”
Spensley Feeds, Inc. v. Livingston Feed & Lumber, Inc., 381 N.W.2d 601 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “*288 The two requirements under sec. 706.04, Stats., which must be met to qualify a real estate transaction for the equitable alternative are: (1) the elements of the transaction must be clearly and satisfactorily proved, and (2) the transaction must fall within one of three…”
Jeff Veach v. Charles Barber (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
Joseph Gene Thompson v. Susanne Rose Ouellette (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
Roger L. Thompson v. Robert Popple (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wis. Stat. § 706.04(2) — 6 cases
Spensley Feeds, Inc. v. Livingston Feed & Lumber, Inc., 381 N.W.2d 601 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “*288 The two requirements under sec. 706.04, Stats., which must be met to qualify a real estate transaction for the equitable alternative are: (1) the elements of the transaction must be clearly and satisfactorily proved, and (2) the transaction must fall within one of three…”
Halverson v. River Falls Youth Hockey Ass'n, 593 N.W.2d 895 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “07 applies "in the situation where you are dealing with repair obligations .”
Brevig v. Webster, 277 N.W.2d 321 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). “It is not for the court to impose its notion of a “reasonable” time on parties to a private contract who have demonstrated by their conduct what is reasonable between them.”
Karen Zahran v. Christine Rademacher (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
Schmitt v. Osborne, 257 N.W.2d 844 (Wis. 1977).
— Wis. Stat. § 706.04(3) — 7 cases
Joseph Gene Thompson v. Susanne Rose Ouellette, 2023 WI App 7 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 706.04. After the circuit court dismissed that claim, Ouellette raised three issues on appeal.”
Gillespie v. Dunlap, 373 N.W.2d 61 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “1 Sec. 706.04, Stats., provides: Equitable relief.”
Spensley Feeds, Inc. v. Livingston Feed & Lumber, Inc., 381 N.W.2d 601 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “*288 The two requirements under sec. 706.04, Stats., which must be met to qualify a real estate transaction for the equitable alternative are: (1) the elements of the transaction must be clearly and satisfactorily proved, and (2) the transaction must fall within one of three…”
Halverson v. River Falls Youth Hockey Ass'n, 593 N.W.2d 895 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “07 applies "in the situation where you are dealing with repair obligations .”
Brevig v. Webster, 277 N.W.2d 321 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). “It is not for the court to impose its notion of a “reasonable” time on parties to a private contract who have demonstrated by their conduct what is reasonable between them.”
— Wis. Stat. § 706.04(3)(a) — 1 case
Karen Zahran v. Christine Rademacher (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 706.04(3)(b) — 1 case
Karen Zahran v. Christine Rademacher (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 706.04(l) — 1 case
K.G.R. v. Town of East Troy, 513 N.W.2d 622 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
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.