Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 859.02 (2026)
Limitation on claims
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
859.02(1)(1) Except as provided in sub. (2) and s. 859.03, all claims against a decedent’s estate including claims of the state and any subdivision thereof, whether due or to become due, absolute or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, are barred against the estate, the personal representative and the heirs and beneficiaries of the decedent unless filed on or before the date set under s. 859.01.
859.02(2)(2) A claim against a decedent’s estate that is not filed on or before the date set under s. 859.01 is not barred if:
859.02(2)(a)(a) It is a claim based on tort, on a marital property agreement that is subject to the time limitations under s. 766.58 (13) (b) or (c), on Wisconsin income, franchise, sales, withholding, gift, or death taxes, or on unemployment insurance contributions due or benefits overpaid; a claim for funeral or administrative expenses; a claim of this state under s. 46.27 (7g), 2017 stats., or s. 49.496, 49.682, or 49.849; or a claim of the United States; or
859.02(2)(b)1.1. On or before the date set under s. 859.01, the personal representative knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the existence of the potential claim and of the identity and mailing address of the potential claimant.
859.02(2)(b)2.2. At least 30 days prior to the date set under s. 859.01, the personal representative had not given notice to the potential claimant of the final day for filing his or her claim and the court in which the estate proceeding was pending.
859.02(2)(b)3.3. At least 30 days prior to the date set under s. 859.01, the claimant did not have actual knowledge that the estate proceeding was pending and of the court in which that proceeding was pending.
859.02(3)(3) Failure of a claimant timely to file a claim against a decedent’s estate does not bar the claimant from satisfying the claim not otherwise barred from property other than the decedent’s estate.
859.02 HistoryHistory: 1989 a. 96; 1991 a. 39, 89, 301; 1995 a. 27; 1997 a. 39; 1999 a. 9; 2005 a. 216; 2013 a. 20; 2019 a. 9; 2021 a. 239 s. 74; 2023 a. 127.
859.02 Cross-referenceCross-reference: See s. 893.93 (1) (c), which bars all claims against a decedent or the estate if administration not commenced within 6 years after death.
859.02 AnnotationAn otherwise valid lease and sale of personal property executed by the decedent are not claims against the estate subject to the limitations of this section. In re Estate of Taylor, 81 Wis. 2d 687, 260 N.W.2d 803 (1978).
859.02 AnnotationA claim against an estate for personal services rendered during an adulterous relationship with the deceased was allowed under a quasi-contract theory. In Matter of Estate of Steffes, 95 Wis. 2d 490, 290 N.W.2d 697 (1980).
859.02 AnnotationThe mere fact that the personal representative corresponded with creditors about accounts payable did not give rise to a fiduciary duty on the part of the personal representative to disclose information about filing claims. In Matter of Estate of Lecic, 104 Wis. 2d 592, 312 N.W.2d 773 (1981).
859.02 AnnotationThe testator’s breach of contract in failing to make certain provisions by will is not actionable in tort. Landwehr v. Citizens Trust Co. 110 Wis. 2d 716, 329 N.W.2d 411 (1983).
859.02 AnnotationProbate filing deadlines for surviving spouses under a marital property regime. Rasmussen and Brown. WBB June 1988.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: In Matter of Est. of Barthel, 468 N.W.2d 689 (Wis. 1991).
In Matter of Est. of Barthel, 468 N.W.2d 689 (Wis. 1991). “Section 859.02(2)(b)1 now provides that if the personal representative "knew, or in an exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the existence of the potential claim and of the identity and mailing address of the potential claimant," and the creditor was not aware…”
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Plath, 468 N.W.2d 689 (Wis. 1991). “02(2) (b)l now provides that if the personal representative "knew, or in an exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the existence of the potential claim and of the identity and mailing address of the potential claimant," and the creditor was not aware of the…”
Patricia Lowell Hammarback v. Est. of Belmar Gunderson (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “” The Estate further argued that in order to comply with Wisconsin law, Hammarback’s “claims would need to be filed against the estate as part of the estate administration,” which was pending in Florida.”
Kenneth C. Grissman v. Est. of John H. Boettcher (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “According to the Estate, “[t]he clear intent of the probate statutes is, that unless excepted by § 859.02, the court assigned probate jurisdiction has sole subject matter jurisdiction over claims and actions against a decedent once a probate administration is commenced,” and 14…”
Arnold R. Kaiser v. Townline CTH-N LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 859.02(2), claims not filed by the set deadline “are barred against the estate, the personal representative and the heirs and beneficiaries.”
— Wis. Stat. § 859.02(2) — 2 cases
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Plath, 468 N.W.2d 689 (Wis. 1991). “02(2) (b)l now provides that if the personal representative "knew, or in an exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the existence of the potential claim and of the identity and mailing address of the potential claimant," and the creditor was not aware of the…”
Arnold R. Kaiser v. Townline CTH-N LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 859.02(2), claims not filed by the set deadline “are barred against the estate, the personal representative and the heirs and beneficiaries.”
— Wis. Stat. § 859.02(2)(a) — 1 case
Kenneth C. Grissman v. Est. of John H. Boettcher (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “According to the Estate, “[t]he clear intent of the probate statutes is, that unless excepted by § 859.02, the court assigned probate jurisdiction has sole subject matter jurisdiction over claims and actions against a decedent once a probate administration is commenced,” and 14…”
— Wis. Stat. § 859.02(2)(b) — 1 case
In Matter of Est. of Barthel, 468 N.W.2d 689 (Wis. 1991). “Section 859.02(2)(b)1 now provides that if the personal representative "knew, or in an exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the existence of the potential claim and of the identity and mailing address of the potential claimant," and the creditor was not aware…”
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.