Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 854 — TRANSFERS AT DEATH — GENERAL RULES
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 854.01 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
854.01854.01 Definitions. In this chapter:
854.01(1)(1) “Extrinsic evidence” means evidence that would be inadmissible under the common law parole evidence rule or a similar doctrine because the evidence is not contained in the governing instrument to which it relates.
854.01(2)(2) “Governing instrument” means a will; a deed; a trust instrument; an insurance or annuity policy; a contract; a pension, profit-sharing, retirement, or similar benefit plan; a marital property agreement under s. 766.58 (3) (f); a beneficiary designation under s. 40.02 (8) (a); an instrument under ch. 705; an instrument that creates or exercises a power of appointment; or any other dispositive, appointive, or nominative instrument that transfers property at death.
854.01(3)(3) “Revocable,” with respect to a disposition, provision, or nomination, means one under which the decedent, at the time referred to, was alone empowered, by law or under the governing instrument, to change or revoke, regardless of whether the decedent was then empowered to designate himself or herself in place of a former designee, and regardless of whether the decedent then had the capacity to exercise the power.
854.01 HistoryHistory: 1997 a. 188; 2005 a. 216 ss. 89, 90, 144.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Bowen v. Am. Fam. Ins., 2012 WI App 29 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bowen v. Am. Fam. Ins., 2012 WI App 29 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “" See Wis. Stat. § 854.01 (2). The disclaimer provisions Bowen cites are therefore inapplicable.”
Maciolek v. City of Milwaukee Employes' Ret. Sys. Annuity & Pension Bd., 2006 WI 10 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 6× “In other words, Maciolek suggests that anything listed in Wis. Stat. § 854.01 as falling within the definition of a "governing instrument," including a marital property agreement, should also be considered a governing instrument under § 854.”
MacIolek v. Mers, 2006 WI 10 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 6× “In other words, Maciolek suggests that anything listed in Wis. Stat. § 854.01 as falling within the definition of a "governing instrument," including a marital property agreement, should also be considered a governing instrument under § 854.”
Mary Taps v. The Est. of Martin Zolondick (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “§ 854.01(2) (2021-22).2 Taps further argues that the relevant governing instruments “effectively dispose[d] of” the funds in Martin’s accounts because there is competent evidence showing that Martin intended that money to be distributed to Taps upon his death.”
Czaplewski v. Shepherd, 2012 WI App 116 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Although the language of the MPA is clear, we note that the trial court, with respect to Donald's right to revise the distribution set forth in the 2002 MPA, found that Dovnik's testimony supported the conclusion that Donald and Lulu Mae chose not to expressly prohibit…”
Scott Austin v. Ricky Roesler (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “01(1) defines “extrinsic evidence” in the context of will construction as “evidence that would be inadmissible under the common law parole evidence rule or a similar doctrine because the evidence is not contained in the governing instrument to which it relates.”
Popanda v. Roth (E.D. Wis. 2025). · cites it 2× “It states that “the unlawful and intentional killing of the decedent” revokes any provision in a governing instrument (such as an insurance policy, Wis. Stat. §854.01 (2)) that, by reason of the decedent’s death, transfers property to the killer.”
Scott Austin v. Ricky Roesler (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 854.01(1) as “evidence that would be inadmissible under the common law parole evidence rule or a similar doctrine because the evidence is not contained in the governing instrument to which it relates.”
— Wis. Stat. § 854.01(1) — 2 cases
Scott Austin v. Ricky Roesler (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “01(1) defines “extrinsic evidence” in the context of will construction as “evidence that would be inadmissible under the common law parole evidence rule or a similar doctrine because the evidence is not contained in the governing instrument to which it relates.”
Scott Austin v. Ricky Roesler (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 854.01(1) as “evidence that would be inadmissible under the common law parole evidence rule or a similar doctrine because the evidence is not contained in the governing instrument to which it relates.”
— Wis. Stat. § 854.01(2) — 2 cases
Mary Taps v. The Est. of Martin Zolondick (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 854.01(2) (2021-22).2 Taps further argues that the relevant governing instruments “effectively dispose[d] of” the funds in Martin’s accounts because there is competent evidence showing that Martin intended that money to be distributed to Taps upon his death.”
Scott Austin v. Ricky Roesler (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “01(1) defines “extrinsic evidence” in the context of will construction as “evidence that would be inadmissible under the common law parole evidence rule or a similar doctrine because the evidence is not contained in the governing instrument to which it relates.”
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.