Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 893.25 (2026)
Adverse possession, not founded on written instrument
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
893.25(1)(1) An action for the recovery or the possession of real estate and a defense or counterclaim based on title to real estate are barred by uninterrupted adverse possession of 20 years, except as provided by s. 893.14 and 893.29. A person who, in connection with his or her predecessors in interest, is in uninterrupted adverse possession of real estate for 20 years, except as provided by s. 893.29, may commence an action to establish title under ch. 841.
893.25(2)(a)(a) Only if the person possessing it, in connection with his or her predecessors in interest, is in actual continued occupation under claim of title, exclusive of any other right; and
893.25 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: This provision collects in one section all material relating to 20-year adverse possession, without change in substance. Previous ss. 893.08 and 893.09, together with part of previous s. 893.10, are integrated here. The words “and a defense or counterclaim based on title to real estate” are added in subsection (1) to assure that deletion of present section 893.03 results in no loss of substance. This section covers the substance of previous s. 893.02, also deleted. Reference to ch. 843 describes the action which an adverse possessor may bring to establish title. The words “in connection with his or her predecessors in interest” are intended to express, but not change, the well-established common law doctrine of “tacking” together periods of possession by adverse possessors in privity with each other. The word “interest” has been substituted for “title” used in previous s. 893.10 (2) because it more accurately expresses the nature of an adverse possessor’s rights until the 20-year period has run, and better reflects the substance of the privity required for tacking between successive adverse possessors. There is no requirement of good faith entry under this section. Entry, for example, under a deed known by the adverse possessor to be fraudulent would start this 20-year period running, but not the 10-year period provided by s. 893.26. [Bill 326-A]
893.25 NoteA grantor can assert adverse possession against a grantee. Lindl v. Ozanne, 85 Wis. 2d 424, 270 N.W.2d 249 (Ct. App. 1978). See also Keller v. Morfeld, 222 Wis. 2d 413, 588 N.W.2d 79 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-3443.
893.25 AnnotationWhere a survey established that disputed lands were not within the calls of the possessor’s deed, the possessor’s claim to property was not under color of title by a written instrument. Beasley v. Konczal, 87 Wis. 2d 233, 275 N.W.2d 634 (1979).
893.25 AnnotationActs that are consistent with sporadic trespass are insufficient to apprise the owner of an adverse claim. Pierz v. Gorski, 88 Wis. 2d 131, 276 N.W.2d 352 (Ct. App. 1979).
893.25 AnnotationWhen evidence is presented as to the extent of occupancy of only a portion of land, only that portion may be awarded in adverse possession proceedings. Droege v. Daymaker Cranberries, Inc., 88 Wis. 2d 140, 276 N.W.2d 356 (Ct. App. 1979).
893.25 AnnotationA judgment under s. 75.521 to foreclose a tax lien extinguishes all right, title, and interest in the foreclosed property, including claims based on adverse possession. Published notice was sufficient. Leciejewski v. Sedlak, 116 Wis. 2d 629, 342 N.W.2d 734 (1984).
893.25 AnnotationA railroad right-of-way is subject to adverse possession, the same as other lands. Meiers v. Wang, 192 Wis. 2d 115, 531 N.W.2d 54 (1995).
893.25 AnnotationLand may be acquired by adverse possession, without adverse intent, when the true owner acquiesces in another’s possession for 20 years. If adjoining owners take from a common grantor by lot number, but the grantees purchased with reference to a boundary actually marked on the ground, the marked boundary, regardless of time, controls. Arnold v. Robbins, 209 Wis. 2d 428, 563 N.W.2d 178 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-0570.
893.25 AnnotationThe 20-year period under this section need not be the 20 years immediately preceding the filing of the court action. Harwick v. Black, 217 Wis. 2d 691, 580 N.W.2d 354 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-1108.
893.25 AnnotationThe use of a surveyor is not required to establish the boundaries of the contested property as long as there is evidence that provides a reasonably accurate basis for the circuit court to know what property is in dispute. Camacho v. Trimble Irrevocable Trust, 2008 WI App 112, 313 Wis. 2d 272, 756 N.W.2d 596, 07-1472.
893.25 AnnotationIf the claimant’s use gives the titleholder reasonable notice that the claimant is asserting ownership and the titleholder does nothing, that failure to respond may result in losing title. However, in the absence of such use by the claimant, the titleholder is not obligated to do anything in order to retain title. Peter H. & Barbara J. Steuck Living Trust v. Easley, 2010 WI App 74, 325 Wis. 2d 455, 785 N.W.2d 631, 09-0757.
893.25 AnnotationThe regular use of a disputed area for hunting, placement of deer stands, and the making of a dirt road to a lake did not constitute open, notorious, visible, exclusive, and hostile use. The sound of gunshots does not gives a reasonably diligent titleholder notice of adverse possession. Gunshots would have been consistent with trespassers, as would portable deer stands, some kept in place all year. The dirt road and the trail continuing on to the lake were consistent with an easement to the lake rather than adverse possession of the entire disputed parcel. Peter H. & Barbara J. Steuck Living Trust v. Easley, 2010 WI App 74, 325 Wis. 2d 455, 785 N.W.2d 631, 09-0757.
893.25 AnnotationIn the absence of an express provision to the contrary, one who adversely possesses under an earlier version of the adverse possession statute may continue possession under the terms of that statute even after its repeal and re-creation. DNR v. Building & All Related or Attached Structures, 2011 WI App 119, 336 Wis. 2d 642, 803 N.W.2d 86, 10-2076.
893.25 AnnotationThe “claim of title” requirement in this section is the statutory equivalent of the common law “hostility” requirement. The plain meaning of “claim of title” is that a possessor must subjectively intend to claim ownership of the disputed property. Although the “claim of title” requirement is presumed when all other elements of adverse possession are established, this presumption may be rebutted with evidence that a party never intended to assert ownership over the property. A party who expressly disclaims ownership of property and seeks permission for its use is not “claiming title” to the property. Wilcox v. Estate of Hines, 2014 WI 60, 355 Wis. 2d 1, 849 N.W.2d 280, 12-1869.
893.25 AnnotationThe true owner’s casual reentry upon property does not defeat the continuity or exclusivity of an adverse claimant’s possession. The true owner’s reentry should be a substantial and material interruption and a notorious reentry for the purpose of dispossessing the adverse occupant. The claimant’s possession need not be absolutely exclusive of all individuals, and need only be a type of possession that would characterize an owner’s use of the property. Kruckenberg v. Krukar, 2017 WI App 70, 378 Wis. 2d 314, 903 N.W.2d 164, 17-0124.
893.25 AnnotationThe “substantial enclosure” requirement is flexible and subject to no precise rule in all cases as so much depends upon the nature and situation of the property. All that is required is some indication of the boundaries of the adverse possession to give notice and need only be reasonably sufficient to attract the attention of the true owner and put the true owner on inquiry as to the nature and extent of the invasion of the true owner’s rights. A fence is universally recognized as a way to indicate a boundary line. Kruckenberg v. Krukar, 2017 WI App 70, 378 Wis. 2d 314, 903 N.W.2d 164, 17-0124.
893.25 AnnotationHey! That’s my land! Understanding Adverse Possession. Shrestha. Wis. Law. Mar. 2010.
893.25 AnnotationWait! Is That My Land? More On Adverse Possession. Shrestha. Wis. Law. July/Aug. 2015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Richard S. Wilcox v. Est. of Ralph Hines, 2014 WI 60 (Wis. 2014).
Richard S. Wilcox v. Est. of Ralph Hines, 2014 WI 60 (Wis. 2014). “In contrast, the titleholders3 maintain that a party's subjective intent4 to claim ownership is relevant to whether "claim of title"5 has been established under Wis. Stat. § 893.25 (2011- 12).6 The titleholders assert that the fact the Somas expressly 3 For the purposes of…”
Steuck Living Trust v. Easley, 2010 WI App 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 893.25. [5] *636 ¶ 5 At the trial to the court, Dale Daggett, the plaintiffs' predecessor in title, testified that when he purchased the property in 2001, he believed he owned the disputed area and he treated it as his.”
Leciejewski v. Sedlak, 342 N.W.2d 734 (Wis. 1984). “The issues presented for review are: (1) Did the trial court properly determine that the Sedlaks satisfied the requirements for ownership of the disputed property by adverse possession under sec. 893.25, Stats.? (2) If so, were the rights that the Sedlaks acquired in the…”
Tomczak v. Bailey, 578 N.W.2d 166 (Wis. 1998). “, Wis. Stat. § 893.25 (2)(a) (1995-96) (requiring actual continued occupation of the property).”
Nommensen v. Am. Cont'l Ins., 2001 WI 112 (Wis. 2001). “0% or higher"); 8060 (Adverse Possession Not Found on Written Instrument ( Wis. Stat. § 893.25 )). ¶ 43. Other instructions reverse the order of the element of certitude and the necessary quantum of evidence.”
Harwick v. Black, 580 N.W.2d 354 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “DISCUSSION The Blacks made their claim for adverse possession under § 893.25, Stats., which states: (1) An action for the recovery or the possession of real estate and a defense or counterclaim based on title to real estate are barred by uninterrupted adverse possession of 20…”
O'NEILL v. Reemer, 2003 WI 13 (Wis. 2003). “He questions Shelton's interpretation which permits claims that are based on 49 years of adverse possession but bars claims that are based on 51 years of adverse possession: Under Shelton , if a person continuously, openly and notoriously possesses property, sufficient to…”
Klinefelter v. Dutch, 467 N.W.2d 192 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “1 The issue is whether, pursuant to sec. 893.25, Stats., the Klinefelters had "occupied" the disputed parcel of wooded land and "[protected it by a substantial enclosure.”
Leciejewski v. Sedlak, 329 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982). “After a trial to the court, the court found that since the summer of 1955, the Sedlaks had engaged in acts on the disputed land sufficient to constitute adverse possession under sec. 893.25, Stats. 3 The court also reaffirmed its earlier findings and decision on the…”
Otto v. Cornell, 349 N.W.2d 703 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “ADVERSE POSSESSION Otto based his claim to the disputed property on ch.”
Kruckenberg v. Krukar, 2017 WI App 70 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “2d 280 ; see also Wis. Stat. § 893.25 (1) (2015-16). 3 Property is adversely possessed only if the possessor, for a period of twenty years, "is in actual continued occupation under claim of title, exclusive of any other right," and the property is "[protected by a substantial…”
Chandelle Enter., LLC v. XLNT Dairy Farm, Inc., 2005 WI App 110 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “5 This ruling is not challenged on appeal; XLNT now concedes it cannot show adverse possession under Wis. Stat. § 893.25 . 6 The court's written findings of fact and conclusions of law suggest its ruling was based on the doctrine of acquiescence.”
— Wis. Stat. § 893.25(1) — 16 cases
Richard S. Wilcox v. Est. of Ralph Hines, 2014 WI 60 (Wis. 2014). “In contrast, the titleholders3 maintain that a party's subjective intent4 to claim ownership is relevant to whether "claim of title"5 has been established under Wis. Stat. § 893.25 (2011- 12).6 The titleholders assert that the fact the Somas expressly 3 For the purposes of…”
Steuck Living Trust v. Easley, 2010 WI App 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 893.25. [5] *636 ¶ 5 At the trial to the court, Dale Daggett, the plaintiffs' predecessor in title, testified that when he purchased the property in 2001, he believed he owned the disputed area and he treated it as his.”
Otto v. Cornell, 349 N.W.2d 703 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “ADVERSE POSSESSION Otto based his claim to the disputed property on ch.”
Camacho v. Trimble Irrevocable Trust, 2008 WI App 112 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
Kenneth C. Grissman v. Est. of John H. Boettcher (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 893.25(2) — 9 cases
Leciejewski v. Sedlak, 342 N.W.2d 734 (Wis. 1984). “The issues presented for review are: (1) Did the trial court properly determine that the Sedlaks satisfied the requirements for ownership of the disputed property by adverse possession under sec. 893.25, Stats.? (2) If so, were the rights that the Sedlaks acquired in the…”
Otto v. Cornell, 349 N.W.2d 703 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “ADVERSE POSSESSION Otto based his claim to the disputed property on ch.”
Leciejewski v. Sedlak, 329 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982). “After a trial to the court, the court found that since the summer of 1955, the Sedlaks had engaged in acts on the disputed land sufficient to constitute adverse possession under sec. 893.25, Stats. 3 The court also reaffirmed its earlier findings and decision on the…”
Camacho v. Trimble Irrevocable Trust, 2008 WI App 112 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
Christopher Hookstead v. Gary Beal (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 893.25(2)(a) — 9 cases
Richard S. Wilcox v. Est. of Ralph Hines, 2014 WI 60 (Wis. 2014). “In contrast, the titleholders3 maintain that a party's subjective intent4 to claim ownership is relevant to whether "claim of title"5 has been established under Wis. Stat. § 893.25 (2011- 12).6 The titleholders assert that the fact the Somas expressly 3 For the purposes of…”
Steuck Living Trust v. Easley, 2010 WI App 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 893.25. [5] *636 ¶ 5 At the trial to the court, Dale Daggett, the plaintiffs' predecessor in title, testified that when he purchased the property in 2001, he believed he owned the disputed area and he treated it as his.”
Harwick v. Black, 580 N.W.2d 354 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “DISCUSSION The Blacks made their claim for adverse possession under § 893.25, Stats., which states: (1) An action for the recovery or the possession of real estate and a defense or counterclaim based on title to real estate are barred by uninterrupted adverse possession of 20…”
Klinefelter v. Dutch, 467 N.W.2d 192 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “1 The issue is whether, pursuant to sec. 893.25, Stats., the Klinefelters had "occupied" the disputed parcel of wooded land and "[protected it by a substantial enclosure.”
David Stahlnecker v. John Vieth (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wis. Stat. § 893.25(2)(b) — 12 cases
Steuck Living Trust v. Easley, 2010 WI App 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 893.25. [5] *636 ¶ 5 At the trial to the court, Dale Daggett, the plaintiffs' predecessor in title, testified that when he purchased the property in 2001, he believed he owned the disputed area and he treated it as his.”
Richard S. Wilcox v. Est. of Ralph Hines, 2014 WI 60 (Wis. 2014). “In contrast, the titleholders3 maintain that a party's subjective intent4 to claim ownership is relevant to whether "claim of title"5 has been established under Wis. Stat. § 893.25 (2011- 12).6 The titleholders assert that the fact the Somas expressly 3 For the purposes of…”
Klinefelter v. Dutch, 467 N.W.2d 192 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “1 The issue is whether, pursuant to sec. 893.25, Stats., the Klinefelters had "occupied" the disputed parcel of wooded land and "[protected it by a substantial enclosure.”
Fabry v. Jagiello, 927 N.W.2d 931 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
David Stahlnecker v. John Vieth (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
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.