Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 706.10 (2026)
Forms, construction
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
706.10(1)(1) The several terms and forms of conveyance authorized by law or in common use in this state on July 1, 1971, shall have the same operation and effect under this chapter as formerly, except as this chapter may expressly provide to the contrary; but this section shall not preclude the adoption or use of other, different or more concise forms which conform to the requirements of this chapter.
706.10(2)(2) No conveyance shall be void for the reason that at the time of delivery thereof such lands are in actual possession of a person claiming under title adverse to the grantor.
706.10(3)(3) In conveyances of lands words of inheritance shall not be necessary to create or convey a fee, and every conveyance shall pass all the estate or interest of the grantor unless a different intent shall appear expressly or by necessary implication in the terms of such conveyance.
706.10(4)(4) A quitclaim deed shall pass all of the interest in or appurtenant to the land described which the grantor could lawfully convey, but shall not warrant or imply the existence, quantity or quality of any such interest.
706.10(5)(5) A conveyance by which the grantor contracts to warrant the land or its title shall be construed according to its terms, under rules of law for construction of contracts. A conveyance by which the grantor warrants the land or its title shall be construed, except as the terms of the conveyance may otherwise provide, to include covenants, for the benefit of the grantee, the grantee’s heirs, successors and assigns, that the grantor at the time of conveyance is lawfully seized of the land; has good right to convey the same land or its title; that the same land or its title is free from all encumbrance; and that the grantor, the grantor’s heirs and personal representatives will forever guarantee and defend the title and quiet possession of the land against all lawful claims whatever originating prior to the conveyance, except as the claims may arise out of open and notorious rights of easement, or out of public building, zoning or use restrictions.
706.10(6)(6) Except as provided in sub. (7) and except as otherwise provided by law, no warranty or covenant shall be implied in any conveyance, whether or not such conveyance contains special warranties or covenants. No mortgage shall be construed as implying a covenant for the payment of the sum thereby intended to be secured, and when there shall be no express covenant for such payment contained in the mortgage and no bond or other separate instrument to secure such payment shall have been given, the remedies of the mortgagee, shall be confined to the lands mentioned in the mortgage.
706.10(7)(7) In the absence of an express or necessarily implied provision to the contrary, a conveyance evidencing a transaction under which the grantor undertakes to improve the premises so as to equip them for grantee’s specified use and occupancy, or to procure such improvement under grantor’s direction or control, shall imply a covenant that such improvement shall be performed in a workmanlike manner, and shall be reasonably adequate to equip the premises for such use and occupancy.
706.10 AnnotationSub. (5) confirms that the rules of contract construction are to be used in interpreting the covenants of a deed. The measure of damages for breach of a covenant is the common law measure of damages for breach of warranty of title. Schorsch v. Blader, 209 Wis. 2d 401, 563 N.W.2d 538 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-1220.
706.10 AnnotationA warranty deed grants a present fee simple interest. A purported reservation of a power of appointment in a warranty deed is ineffective. Powers may be reserved and lesser interests granted, but not by warranty deed. Lucareli v. Lucareli, 2000 WI App 133, 237 Wis. 2d 487, 614 N.W.2d 60, 99-1679.
706.10 AnnotationSub. (3) applies to easements. Borek Cranberry Marsh, Inc. v. Jackson County, 2010 WI 95, 328 Wis. 2d 613, 785 N.W.2d 615, 08-1144.
706.10 AnnotationA necessary implication under sub. (3) is one that is so clear as to be express; it is a required implication. The words “heirs and assigns,” or any similar language, are unnecessary under sub. (3) to indicate a transferable interest. As a matter of law, “grantee” has the exact same meaning as “grantee and his heirs and assigns” unless another meaning is expressly stated or implied. Therefore, “heirs and assigns” need not be construed as having any legal effect and the use of the term in a grant of water flowage rights and not in a grant of sand removal rights in the same deed did not create a necessary implication that the sand rights were non-transferable. Borek Cranberry Marsh, Inc. v. Jackson County, 2010 WI 95, 328 Wis. 2d 613, 785 N.W.2d 615, 08-1144.
706.10 AnnotationPerformance in a “workmanlike manner” under sub. (7) requires a builder to perform work with the care and skill and provide suitable materials as contractors of reasonable prudence, skill, and judgment in similar construction would. Riverfront Lofts Condominium Owners Ass’n v. Milwaukee/Riverfront Properties Limited Partnership, 236 F. Supp. 2d 918 (2002).
706.10 AnnotationFor the premises not to be “reasonably adequate for their intended use and occupancy” under sub. (7), a showing of negligence is not necessary. The defect must be fundamental to the habitability of the building. A defendant must meet a high standard to establish a disclaimer of the protections of sub. (7). Riverfront Lofts Condominium Owners Ass’n v. Milwaukee/Riverfront Properties Limited Partnership, 236 F. Supp. 2d 918 (2002).
706.10 AnnotationBuilder-Vendor Liability for Construction Defects in Houses. Kirschnik. 55 MLR 369 (1972).
706.10 AnnotationDuty to Disclose Limited to Commercial Vendors. Wamhoff. 64 MLR 547 (1981).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Borek Cranberry Marsh, Inc. v. Jackson Cnty., 2010 WI 95 (Wis. 2010).
Borek Cranberry Marsh, Inc. v. Jackson Cnty., 2010 WI 95 (Wis. 2010). “The court of appeals reversed, holding that Wis. Stat. § 706.10 (3) (1977-78), [3] which makes words of inheritance unnecessary and creates a presumption in favor of transferability, required the court to interpret the deed as conveying transferable sand removal rights.”
James Cobb v. Gary A. King, 2022 WI 59 (Wis. 2022). “¶8 A majority of this court forgoes an opportunity to correct an objectively erroneous interpretation of law.”
Borek Cranberry Marsh, Inc. v. Jackson Cnty., 2009 WI App 129 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “Borek argues that the sand removal right was transferable because the sand removal right does not evince an express or necessarily implied intent to create a personal right that would overcome the presumption of transferability of conveyances established in Wis. Stat. § 706.10…”
Riverfront Lofts Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Milwaukee/Riverfront Props. Ltd. P'ship, 236 F. Supp. 2d 918 (E.D. Wis. 2002). “Plaintiff brought tort claims, claims for breach of contract, and claims under Wis. Stat. § 706.10 (7) for breach of the implied covenant of workmanlike performance and reasonable adequacy for purpose.”
Sampson Investments v. Jondex Corp., 499 N.W.2d 177 (Wis. 1993). “Section 706.10(6), Stats. 1989-90 states that ".”
O'Connell v. O'Connell, 2005 WI App 51 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “We conclude it does not because a potential claim in equity in a partition action is not an encumbrance under Wis. Stat. § 706.10 (5) 3 and the warranty deed.”
Schorsch v. Blader, 563 N.W.2d 538 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “On appeal, the District challenges the trial court's measure of damages, as a matter of law.”
Rapids Assocs. v. Shopko Store, Inc., 292 N.W.2d 668 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “(1969), renumbered §706.10(6), Stats. (1977). 6 Masciotra v.”
Com. Bluff One Condo. Ass'n v. Dixon, 2011 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “es in the appeal as "respondents" because while this appeal was pending and in documents identifying themselves as "respondents," they: (1) objected to Dixon's and Cornerstone's motion to stay the trial pending their appeal of the circuit court's final orders involving Kubala…”
Lucareli v. Lucareli, 2000 WI App 133 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “§ 706.10(3). Lucille's interest was fee simple; that is what she warranted in the deed.”
Wonka v. Cari, 2001 WI App 274 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “Wis. Stat. § 706.10 (4). The Andersons could not convey what they did not own.”
James Cobb v. Gary A. King (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 706.10(3) (2019-20),1 1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.”
— Wis. Stat. § 706.10(3) — 7 cases
Borek Cranberry Marsh, Inc. v. Jackson Cnty., 2010 WI 95 (Wis. 2010). “The court of appeals reversed, holding that Wis. Stat. § 706.10 (3) (1977-78), [3] which makes words of inheritance unnecessary and creates a presumption in favor of transferability, required the court to interpret the deed as conveying transferable sand removal rights.”
James Cobb v. Gary A. King, 2022 WI 59 (Wis. 2022). “¶8 A majority of this court forgoes an opportunity to correct an objectively erroneous interpretation of law.”
Borek Cranberry Marsh, Inc. v. Jackson Cnty., 2009 WI App 129 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “Borek argues that the sand removal right was transferable because the sand removal right does not evince an express or necessarily implied intent to create a personal right that would overcome the presumption of transferability of conveyances established in Wis. Stat. § 706.10…”
Lucareli v. Lucareli, 2000 WI App 133 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “§ 706.10(3). Lucille's interest was fee simple; that is what she warranted in the deed.”
James Cobb v. Gary A. King (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 706.10(3) (2019-20),1 1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.”
— Wis. Stat. § 706.10(4) — 4 cases
Peoples State Bank v. Debra K. McCarty (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
Leonard Pozner v. James Fetzer (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
Michael P. McGarry v. Ruth Zambo (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
Anna Heise Revocable Trust v. Vill. of Pewaukee (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wis. Stat. § 706.10(5) — 2 cases
Schorsch v. Blader, 563 N.W.2d 538 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “On appeal, the District challenges the trial court's measure of damages, as a matter of law.”
DEKK Prop. Dev., LLC v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wis. Stat. § 706.10(6) — 3 cases
Sampson Investments v. Jondex Corp., 499 N.W.2d 177 (Wis. 1993). “Section 706.10(6), Stats. 1989-90 states that ".”
Rapids Assocs. v. Shopko Store, Inc., 292 N.W.2d 668 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “(1969), renumbered §706.10(6), Stats. (1977). 6 Masciotra v.”
Century Shopping Ctr. Fund I v. Crivello, 456 N.W.2d 858 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).
— Wis. Stat. § 706.10(7) — 3 cases
Riverfront Lofts Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Milwaukee/Riverfront Props. Ltd. P'ship, 236 F. Supp. 2d 918 (E.D. Wis. 2002). “Plaintiff brought tort claims, claims for breach of contract, and claims under Wis. Stat. § 706.10 (7) for breach of the implied covenant of workmanlike performance and reasonable adequacy for purpose.”
Com. Bluff One Condo. Ass'n v. Dixon, 2011 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “es in the appeal as "respondents" because while this appeal was pending and in documents identifying themselves as "respondents," they: (1) objected to Dixon's and Cornerstone's motion to stay the trial pending their appeal of the circuit court's final orders involving Kubala…”
Fed. Ins. Co. & Brewery Works, Inc. v. Grunau Proj. Dev., Inc., 721 N.W.2d 157 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
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.