Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 842.02 (2026)
Partition; plaintiffs
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
842.02(1)(1) A person having an interest in real property jointly or in common with others may sue for judgment partitioning such interest unless an action for partition is prohibited elsewhere in the statutes or by agreement between the parties for a period not to exceed 30 years.
842.02(2)(2) The plaintiff in the plaintiff’s complaint may demand judgment of partition and, in the alternative, if partition is impossible, judicial sale of the land or interest, and division of the proceeds.
842.02 HistoryHistory: 1973 c. 189; Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 767 (1975); Stats. 1975 s. 842.02; 1993 a. 486.
842.02 AnnotationA “buy-out” agreement that lacked a termination date did not violate the 30-year limit. Schneider v. Schneider, 132 Wis. 2d 171, 389 N.W.2d 835 (Ct. App. 1986).
842.02 AnnotationA limitation on partition can be implied or express. Equity dictates that a party claiming ownership under a will should be bound by reasonable restrictions in that will, including reasonable restraints on alienation. The general rule is that effect will be given to the intention of the testator as expressed in the will, and that no partition suit will lie before the date so fixed or the happening of the event named. If an heir disagrees with a restriction in a will, he or she is free to decline the bequest. Fohr v. Fohr, 2007 WI App 149, 302 Wis. 2d 510, 735 N.W.2d 570, 06-1559.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Prince Corp. v. James N. Vandenberg, 2016 WI 49 (Wis. 2016).
Prince Corp. v. James N. Vandenberg, 2016 WI 49 (Wis. 2016). “The circuit court denied their request to partition the property, as it found that partition would prejudice one or more parties with some interest in the property.”
O'Connell v. O'Connell, 2005 WI App 51 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “The question of whether Gerald should be reimbursed for disproportionately borne expenses is remanded to the trial court for equitable consideration under Wis. Stat. § 842.02 . Because it is unclear, based on the judgment and the record, whether the award of fees and costs…”
Yorgan v. Durkin, 2006 WI 60 (Wis. 2006). “The court of appeals concluded that Gerald's claim for an equitable lien on the proceeds did not have to be brought until the sale proceeds were received; and therefore, he could seek disproportionate reimbursement from the proceeds pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 842.02 . Id. Under…”
Boltz v. Boltz, 395 N.W.2d 605 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “The term “impossible” as used in this statute must be read in the context of the standard of a judicially ordered sale as set forth in sec.”
MS Real Est. Holdings, LLC v. Donald P. Fox Fam. Trust, 2015 WI 49 (Wis. 2015). “In Schneider , the court of appeals considered whether an agreement between two brothers that restricted the sale of property held by them as tenants in common was indefinite as to duration because it contained no express amount of time it was to endure, thereby violating the…”
Schmit v. Klumpyan, 2003 WI App 107 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “Equity does not limit the trial court to the statutory partition remedies found in Wis. Stat. § 842.02 (2). The power of the court to "enlarge the scope of the ordinary forms of relief, and even to contrive new ones adapted to new circumstances" *432 makes it possible that in…”
Klawitter v. Klawitter, 2001 WI App 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “§ 842.02 (1997-98). 1 Elmer responded with a counterclaim asking the trial court to quiet title in him under a declaratory judgment pursuant to WlS.”
Schneider v. Schneider, 389 N.W.2d 835 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “They raised the agreement as a defense, relying on sec. 842.02(1), Stats., which provides that anyone who owns an interest in land in common with others may sue to partition that interest "unless an action for partition is prohibited .”
Reckner v. Reckner, 314 N.W.2d 159 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981). “” Section 842.02 provides a cause of action to persons having interests in real property jointly or in common.”
Nettesheim v. S.G. New Age Prods., Inc., 2005 WI App 169 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “Wis. Stat. § 842.02 (1). When physical partition is impossible, the court may order the land sold and the proceeds of that sale divided.”
Prince Corp. v. Vandenberg, 2015 WI App 55 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “See Wis. Stat. § 842.02 (2); Schmit v. Klumpyan, 2003 WI App 107, ¶ 22 , 264 Wis.”
MS Real Est. Holdings, LLC v. Donald P. Fox Fam. Trust, 2014 WI App 84 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “Allen raised as a defense Wis. Stat. § 842.02 (1), which stated *317 that a partition action may be prohibited by an "agreement between the parties for a period not to exceed 30 years.”
— Wis. Stat. § 842.02(1) — 6 cases
Schneider v. Schneider, 389 N.W.2d 835 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “They raised the agreement as a defense, relying on sec. 842.02(1), Stats., which provides that anyone who owns an interest in land in common with others may sue to partition that interest "unless an action for partition is prohibited .”
Fohr v. Fohr, 2007 WI App 149 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).
Samantha Mueller v. Lawrence Larson (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
Nettesheim v. Sg New Age Prods., Inc., 2005 WI App 169 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005).
Maloney v. Maloney, 928 N.W.2d 802 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 842.02(2) — 6 cases
Boltz v. Boltz, 395 N.W.2d 605 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “The term “impossible” as used in this statute must be read in the context of the standard of a judicially ordered sale as set forth in sec.”
Nettesheim v. Sg New Age Prods., Inc., 2005 WI App 169 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005).
Samantha Mueller v. Lawrence Larson (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
Glen M. Groeschel v. Daniel F. Groeschel (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
Ann K. Cady v. Matthew C. O'Malley (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
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.