Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 706.13 (2026)
Slander of title
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
706.13(1)(1) In addition to any criminal penalty or civil remedy provided by law, any person who submits for filing, entering in the judgment and lien docket or recording, any lien, claim of lien, lis pendens, writ of attachment, financing statement or any other instrument relating to a security interest in or the title to real or personal property, and who knows or should have known that the contents or any part of the contents of the instrument are false, a sham or frivolous, is liable in tort to any person interested in the property whose title is thereby impaired, for punitive damages of $1,000 plus any actual damages caused by the filing, entering or recording.
706.13(2)(2) This section applies to any person who causes another person to act in the manner specified in sub. (1).
706.13(3)(3) This section does not apply to a register of deeds or other government employee who acts in the course of his or her official duties and files, enters or records any instrument relating to title on behalf of another person.
706.13 AnnotationEnactment of this section did not create a cause of action nor destroy the common-law right of recovery. Schlytter v. Lesperance, 62 Wis. 2d 661, 215 N.W.2d 552 (1974).
706.13 AnnotationWhen a lawsuit is commenced under this section, conditional rather than absolute privilege applies to the filing of a lis pendens. Kensington Development Corp. v. Israel, 142 Wis. 2d 894, 419 N.W.2d 241 (1988).
706.13 AnnotationThe filing of a lis pendens is not privileged when there is no relationship between the filing and the underlying action. Larson v. Zilz, 151 Wis. 2d 637, 445 N.W.2d 699 (Ct. App. 1989).
706.13 AnnotationTo recover for slander of title, it is not necessary in all cases to prove the loss of an actual sale. The trial court must consider whether it is reasonable under the circumstances to require proof that the slander prevented a particular sale, and if not, the court must determine the degree of particularity required. Tym v. Ludwig, 196 Wis. 2d 375, 538 N.W.2d 600 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-2859.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Kensington Dev. Corp. v. Israel, 419 N.W.2d 241 (Wis. 1988).
Kensington Dev. Corp. v. Israel, 419 N.W.2d 241 (Wis. 1988). “These events occurred before the instant action was commenced in state court and, therefore, there was no bankruptcy action to take federal supremacy and exclusivity.”
Briesemeister v. Lehner, 2006 WI App 140 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “at 902-03 ; Wis. Stat. § 706.13 . 7 ¶ 41. The trial court had decided on summary judgment that the Briesemeisters' attempted with *450 drawal of their notices of defects doomed their claim for specific performance.”
Kensington Dev. Corp. v. Israel, 407 N.W.2d 269 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “Because the legislature’s slander of title statute, sec. 706.13, Stats., is contradictory to this common law, we hold that the filing of a lis pendens in this case enjoys only a conditional privilege.”
Kevin P. Gerard v. Michael J. Gerard, 780 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2015). “After closing arguments, the jury was presented with an instruction based on Wis. Stat. § 706.13 (1), which defines the intentional tort of slander of title as follows: any person who submits for filing, entering in the judgment and lien docket or recording, any lien, claim of…”
Zweber v. Melar Ltd., Inc., 2004 WI App 185 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “Wis. Stat. § 706.13 (1). 5 It is possible to dispute the meaning of proceedings.”
Ortiz v. Aurora Health Care, Inc. (In Re Ortiz), 430 B.R. 523 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2010). “However, with the enactment of § 706.13, Stats., the legislature has, in effect, modified this doctrine as it relates to the filing of a lis pendens and rendered it a conditional privilege.”
Gerald T. Niedert v. Richard J. Rieger, 200 F.3d 522 (7th Cir. 1999). “See Wis. Stat. Ann. § 706.13 (1) (1999). In arguing that Rieger’s affidavit forms the basis for a slander of title claim, Niedert overstates the breadth of that tort.”
Schlytter v. Lesperance, 215 N.W.2d 552 (Wis. 1974). “This cause of action prayed for a penalty of $1,000 and actual damages for violation of sec. 706.13, Stats. 1 The trial court held in its memorandum decision of November 16, 1971, that the plaintiffs were entitled to have the title quieted against the claims of the defendants,…”
Tym v. Ludwig, 538 N.W.2d 600 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “The defendant in a slander of title action under § 706.13, Stats., is protected against liability for the truth of statements made in a lien claim by the conditional privilege stated in Kensington Dev.”
Belleville State Bank v. Steele, 345 N.W.2d 405 (Wis. 1984). “Moreover, it is more difficult for prospective purchasers of Wisconsin real property to determine the status or validity of an action in a court outside the state than in a Wisconsin court. We do not find this reasoning persuasive.”
Interlaken Serv. Corp. v. Interlaken Condo. Ass'n, 588 N.W.2d 262 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “(Association) brought a counterclaim for slander of title pursuant to § 706.13, Stats., against Interlaken Service Corporation (Service Corporation) after the Service Corporation had filed a lis pendens in conjunction with its suit for breach of contract against the Association.”
Ortiz v. Aurora Health Care, Inc. (In Re Ortiz), 464 B.R. 807 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2012). “However, with the enactment of § 706.13, Stats., the legislature has, in effect, modified this doctrine as it relates to the filing of a lis pendens and rendered it a conditional privilege.”
— Wis. Stat. § 706.13(1) — 5 cases
Kensington Dev. Corp. v. Israel, 419 N.W.2d 241 (Wis. 1988). “These events occurred before the instant action was commenced in state court and, therefore, there was no bankruptcy action to take federal supremacy and exclusivity.”
Tym v. Ludwig, 538 N.W.2d 600 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “The defendant in a slander of title action under § 706.13, Stats., is protected against liability for the truth of statements made in a lien claim by the conditional privilege stated in Kensington Dev.”
Interlaken Serv. Corp. v. Interlaken Condo. Ass'n, 588 N.W.2d 262 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “(Association) brought a counterclaim for slander of title pursuant to § 706.13, Stats., against Interlaken Service Corporation (Service Corporation) after the Service Corporation had filed a lis pendens in conjunction with its suit for breach of contract against the Association.”
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Carolyn M. Nelson (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
Aaron Carmody v. Byline Bank (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
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.