The conveyance of residential property under an “as is” agreement in Wisconsin signifies that the seller offers the premises in its current condition, without warranty or guarantee regarding its state of repair. A buyer accepting such terms acknowledges responsibility for any existing defects or required remediation. For example, a seller might disclose known issues like a leaky roof but will not undertake repairs prior to the sale closing.
This type of transaction can expedite the sales process and potentially reduce seller costs associated with pre-sale repairs. Historically, it has been utilized when sellers lack the resources or inclination to address property defects, or when the property’s value is primarily derived from its location or development potential rather than its structural integrity. It’s also relevant in estate sales or situations involving distressed properties.
This arrangement necessitates a heightened degree of due diligence from the buyer, including thorough inspections and assessments. Crucially, Wisconsin law still requires sellers to disclose known material adverse facts affecting the property’s value, even within an “as is” agreement. The following discussion will further clarify legal obligations, buyer considerations, and best practices for this method of property transfer.
1. Disclosure Obligations
In the context of transferring property in Wisconsin under an “as is” arrangement, the principle of disclosure obligations emerges not as an exception, but as a critical cornerstone. While the explicit intent is to transfer a property in its existing state, the law interposes a duty upon the seller to truthfully reveal any known material defects that could affect the property’s value. This obligation forms a bulwark against deception and underscores the state’s commitment to fair dealings, even within a “buyer beware” framework.
-
Material Adverse Facts
Wisconsin Statute Chapter 709 compels sellers to disclose known “material adverse facts.” These are defined as conditions that a party significantly values objectively, or conditions that a party would regard as substantially reducing the property’s value or structurally impairing its integrity. For instance, consider a seller aware of a history of groundwater seepage into the basement, even if currently dry. Concealing this fact violates their disclosure duty. The penalty can range from lawsuits seeking damages to rescission of the sale.
-
The Real Estate Condition Report (RECR)
Wisconsin law mandates the use of a Real Estate Condition Report (RECR) in most residential real estate transactions. This detailed document requires sellers to answer a comprehensive list of questions regarding the property’s condition, covering everything from structural integrity to environmental hazards. Although selling “as is” does not waive the RECR requirement, it acknowledges that the buyer accepts the property based on the disclosures made, assuming all disclosed defects. However, misleading answers or omissions create liability.
-
Latent Defects vs. Patent Defects
Disclosure obligations primarily concern “latent” defects those not readily observable through a reasonable inspection. A cracked foundation concealed by paneling, for example, is a latent defect requiring disclosure. In contrast, a large, visible hole in the roof would be considered a “patent” defect. The buyer is presumed to be aware of patent defects through their own inspection, diminishing the seller’s responsibility for them. However, even with patent defects, deliberately concealing their extent or underlying cause could trigger liability.
-
“As Is” Does Not Mean “As Secret”
It is imperative to understand that the phrase “as is” does not grant the seller license to hide known problems. Courts have consistently held that “as is” clauses offer protection against claims arising from unknown or undiscovered defects, not from intentional misrepresentation or concealment. The “as is” designation primarily shifts the responsibility for future discoveries to the buyer, but it does not absolve the seller of honesty and transparency regarding conditions they already know.
The interplay between disclosure obligations and the “as is” sale framework in Wisconsin creates a nuanced legal environment. While sellers are freed from the obligation to repair, they are not free from the obligation to disclose. This balance protects buyers from intentional deception while empowering them to assess risk and make informed decisions when purchasing properties in their current state. The RECR and the concept of material adverse facts act as pillars of this framework, ensuring a degree of fairness and transparency in these transactions.
2. Inspection Rights
In the landscape of real estate conveyance within Wisconsin, the notion of “as is” sales casts a particular light upon the prospective buyer’s prerogative to inspect. Though the seller offers no warranties, the buyer retains the crucial capacity to discern the property’s true condition before committing to its acquisition. This right, while seemingly straightforward, carries significant weight in the balance of risk.
-
The Unwaivable Opportunity
Wisconsin law, while permitting “as is” sales, does not generally allow for a complete denial of inspection rights. Even with an agreement stipulating the property’s acceptance in its current state, a buyer typically retains the ability to conduct professional evaluations. This provision acknowledges the inherent asymmetry of information, granting the purchaser a chance to uncover hidden liabilities that could significantly impact their investment. A prospective homeowner, for example, might engage a structural engineer to assess the soundness of the foundation, revealing potential issues not readily apparent to the untrained eye.
-
The Scope of Scrutiny
The boundaries of permissible inspection are usually defined by the purchase agreement itself. Commonplace evaluations include those by home inspectors, roofers, plumbers, electricians, and environmental specialists. A buyer concerned about the presence of asbestos, for instance, could arrange for air quality testing. However, destructive testing, such as tearing down walls, typically requires explicit seller consent. Without such agreement, the buyer risks breaching the contract and forfeiting their earnest money deposit. The scope is only limited by the scope of the agreement and mutual consent.
-
Renegotiation Leverage
The results of inspections, even in “as is” transactions, can afford the buyer a degree of negotiating leverage. Suppose a buyer discovers significant and costly repairs are required, such as a failing septic system. While the seller is not obligated to address these issues, the buyer could attempt to renegotiate the purchase price to reflect the newly identified expenses. The seller, faced with the prospect of losing the sale or having to disclose the defect to future buyers, might be amenable to a reduction in price, or a credit at closing.
-
The Double-Edged Sword
Exercising the right to inspect is not without its considerations. Engaging professionals incurs costs, and the clock is always ticking. Purchase agreements often contain deadlines for completing inspections and notifying the seller of any concerns. If a buyer fails to meet these deadlines, they may lose the right to object to the property’s condition or terminate the agreement. Furthermore, inspection reports, once obtained, might need to be disclosed to the seller, potentially impacting future sale attempts should the current transaction fall through.
The intersection of “as is” sales and inspection rights in Wisconsin underscores a delicate balance. While the seller seeks to limit liability and the buyer accepts the property’s existing condition, the law provides a mechanism for informed decision-making. By exercising their inspection rights, buyers gain valuable insights, mitigate risks, and potentially influence the terms of the transaction, transforming a seemingly straightforward deal into a complex negotiation.
3. Contingency Waivers
The path to transferring a property under “as is” conditions in Wisconsin frequently encounters the crossroads of contingency waivers. These waivers, in essence, represent a buyer’s decision to relinquish certain protections typically built into real estate contracts. They mark a deliberate shift in risk allocation, further solidifying the “as is” nature of the transaction. One might envision a scenario where a prospective buyer, eager to secure a lakeside cabin despite visible signs of disrepair, agrees to waive the standard inspection contingency. This action acknowledges their acceptance of potential structural flaws and removes their ability to back out of the deal based on subsequent inspection findings.
The significance of contingency waivers within “as is” sales cannot be overstated. Consider a buyer who omits a financing contingency in a fiercely competitive market, even for a property with known foundation issues. This decision demonstrates confidence in securing funding regardless of the property’s condition. Should the lender later decline the loan due to the structural concerns, the buyer bears the financial consequences, potentially losing their earnest money deposit. The waiver, therefore, becomes a binding commitment, reflecting the buyer’s willingness to proceed despite inherent uncertainties. The absence of these contingencies effectively streamlines the sale, removing potential obstacles and expediting the closing process, but at a palpable cost to the buyer’s safety net.
Navigating “as is” sales with contingency waivers demands a clear understanding of potential ramifications. While waivers accelerate the transaction and may increase the attractiveness of an offer, they also expose the buyer to greater financial risk. The decision to relinquish these safeguards should be weighed carefully, considering the property’s condition, the buyer’s risk tolerance, and the availability of alternative protections such as title insurance. In summary, contingency waivers act as pivotal elements in the “as is” equation, solidifying the buyer’s commitment and redefining the boundaries of responsibility within the transfer of property.
4. Negotiated Price
The weathered farmhouse stood sentinel against the Wisconsin landscape, a testament to generations past. Its listing price, significantly below market value, openly declared its “as is” condition. The peeling paint, the settling foundation, and the outdated wiring were not secrets; they were bargaining chips, each contributing to a complex calculation that would determine the final negotiated price. For the seller, an estate executor burdened with liquidating assets, the goal was expediency and minimal investment. For the prospective buyer, a young couple with a vision for restoration, the challenge lay in accurately quantifying the inherent risks and translating them into a fair offer. The price tag wasn’t simply a number; it was the battleground upon which the hopes and realities of both parties would collide.
The dance of negotiation began with a low offer, reflecting the extensive repairs documented in the inspection report. The seller countered, acknowledging the work required but emphasizing the property’s desirable location and the inherent value of the acreage. Back and forth they went, each concession a carefully considered maneuver. The buyers pointed to estimates from contractors, detailing the cost of rewiring, re-plumbing, and structural stabilization. The seller, in turn, highlighted comparable sales in the area, reminding the buyers of the potential for significant appreciation once the renovations were complete. The negotiated price became a delicate equilibrium, reflecting the balance between the property’s liabilities and its latent potential, a tangible representation of the risks each party was willing to accept. Had the property been offered without the “as is” designation, the initial listing price would have been substantially higher, factoring in the cost of pre-sale repairs. The ‘as is’ condition allowed for a different starting point, a shared understanding that the buyer was assuming responsibility for the property’s shortcomings in exchange for a reduced purchase price.
Ultimately, a price was agreed upon, a compromise that satisfied both parties’ needs. The buyers secured a property with significant upside potential at a price that reflected its current state. The seller achieved a quick sale, avoiding the time and expense of extensive repairs. The negotiated price, therefore, wasn’t merely a transaction; it was a testament to transparency, due diligence, and the art of compromise, a clear illustration of how value can be found, even in the face of imperfection, when all parties engage with open eyes and realistic expectations in a Wisconsin real estate market.
5. Contractual Language
The old farmhouse, a silhouette against the fading Wisconsin sunset, held stories etched in its weathered timbers. But its future, like so many properties traded under the banner of “as is”, hinged not on those whispered tales, but on the stark, black-and-white precision of the purchase agreement. For it is within the contractual language that the very essence of such a sale is defined, its risks allocated, and its consequences ultimately realized. A misplaced comma, an ambiguous phrase, or a poorly defined term could transform a seemingly straightforward transaction into a legal quagmire, a battleground where fortunes are won and lost. The “as is” clause itself, a seemingly simple declaration, carries immense weight, releasing the seller from obligations regarding property condition, yet simultaneously demanding unwavering clarity and candor in disclosures. If a seller neglects to reveal a known history of basement flooding, even within an “as is” agreement, the contractual language, and the laws it reflects, will offer recourse to the deceived buyer.
Consider the tale of the Smith family, who purchased a charming Victorian home “as is” in a quiet Wisconsin town. The contract contained a standard inspection clause, but it also included a waiver stating that the buyers accepted the property “in its current condition with all faults, whether known or unknown.” The Smiths, blinded by the house’s charm, conducted a cursory inspection and proceeded with the sale. Months later, after a particularly harsh winter, they discovered extensive termite damage hidden behind the ornate plasterwork. The cost of remediation was staggering, exceeding their available savings. A legal battle ensued, focusing on the interpretation of the “with all faults” clause. Did it encompass latent defects like termite damage, or only those reasonably discoverable through inspection? The court ultimately sided with the Smiths, finding that the seller had a duty to disclose known termite infestations, regardless of the “as is” clause and the broad waiver language. This case underscores the critical importance of precise contractual language, ensuring that both parties understand the scope of the agreement and the allocation of risk. Furthermore, it illustrates that, despite the intent of an “as is” sale, the seller’s obligation to disclose known material defects remains paramount.
Therefore, in the realm of “selling a house as is in Wisconsin,” contractual language serves not merely as a formality, but as the very framework upon which the transaction rests. It defines the boundaries of obligation, clarifies the allocation of risk, and ultimately dictates the consequences of unforeseen circumstances. The “as is” designation does not suspend the need for precise and unambiguous language; rather, it amplifies it. Buyers and sellers alike must approach the contract with meticulous attention, seeking legal counsel to ensure that their rights and obligations are clearly defined and fully understood, transforming the potential minefield of an “as is” sale into a landscape of informed and equitable exchange. For in the world of real estate, as in life, the devil often resides in the details, and the details, in this case, are meticulously enshrined within the contractual language.
6. Risk Allocation
In the realm of Wisconsin real estate, the term “selling a house as is” immediately conjures the concept of risk allocation. This is the fundamental question of who bears the burden when unforeseen issues arise after the sale. The “as is” designation attempts to shift this burden predominantly to the buyer, but the extent of that shift is often a complex dance governed by law, disclosure, and the specifics of the agreement.
-
The Patent vs. Latent Defect Divide
A tale is told of a buyer who purchased a seemingly idyllic cottage on Lake Geneva, only to discover after the first heavy rains that the basement transformed into an indoor swimming pool. The extent of the damage was not apparent during a standard inspection, as the sellers had cleverly concealed the water stains with fresh paint and strategically placed furniture. In this scenario, the risk allocation hinges on whether the defect was considered patent (easily discoverable) or latent (hidden). The buyer argued that the sellers deliberately concealed the problem, a latent defect, shifting the risk back to them. The court agreed, finding that the sellers had a duty to disclose the known flooding, even within an “as is” sale. This illustrates that the risk allocation is not absolute; sellers cannot hide behind the “as is” clause to conceal known issues.
-
The Role of Due Diligence
Another account involves a savvy investor who purchased a commercial property “as is” with the intent of redevelopment. The investor, however, conducted extensive environmental testing before closing, uncovering significant soil contamination. Armed with this knowledge, they negotiated a substantial price reduction with the seller, acknowledging the cost of remediation. In this case, the risk allocation was proactively addressed through thorough due diligence. The investor knowingly assumed the environmental risk, but the reduced price reflected that assumption. Had they skipped the environmental assessment, the risk would have fallen squarely on their shoulders, a stark reminder that the “as is” designation demands a heightened level of buyer vigilance.
-
Contractual Precision as Shield and Sword
A cautionary narrative tells of a couple who purchased a historic home “as is,” relying solely on the seller’s verbal assurances regarding the structural integrity of the foundation. The contract itself contained only a standard “as is” clause without specific disclaimers or waivers. After moving in, they discovered significant foundation cracks, requiring extensive and costly repairs. They attempted to sue the seller, arguing that the verbal assurances constituted a warranty despite the “as is” clause. The court, however, ruled in favor of the seller, emphasizing the importance of written contracts and the principle of caveat emptor (buyer beware). This underscores the critical role of contractual precision in risk allocation. Had the buyers insisted on a specific foundation inspection contingency or a more detailed disclaimer in the contract, they might have shifted some of the risk back to the seller.
These narratives, drawn from the Wisconsin real estate landscape, highlight the nuanced interplay of “selling a house as is” and risk allocation. While the “as is” designation aims to transfer the majority of the risk to the buyer, the law and the circumstances of each transaction can significantly alter that equation. Disclosure obligations, due diligence, and contractual precision are the key elements that determine who ultimately bears the burden when the unexpected arises in a Wisconsin real estate transaction.
7. Title Insurance
The old Victorian stood on a rise overlooking the Wisconsin River, offered for sale as is. The faded grandeur hinted at a prosperous past, but closer inspection revealed years of deferred maintenance and a tangled ownership history. While the “as is” designation placed the onus of physical repairs squarely on the buyer, a shadow loomed larger: the potential for title defects. These hidden blemishes on the property’s lineageunpaid liens, unresolved estate claims, or boundary disputescould invalidate ownership, rendering the physical condition almost irrelevant. This is where title insurance steps in, not to address the peeling paint or the leaky roof, but to safeguard against these intangible threats to clear ownership.
Consider the case of the Jensen family, who purchased just such a property, lured by its low price and the promise of restoration. They diligently inspected the premises, accounting for every cracked window and crumbling brick. However, they neglected to secure a comprehensive title search and subsequent insurance policy. Months after moving in, they received a notice from a distant relative of the previous owner, claiming a share of the property based on a poorly documented will from the early 20th century. The ensuing legal battle consumed years and tens of thousands of dollars, ultimately forcing the Jensens to settle for a fraction of their investment. Had they obtained title insurance, the insurance company would have defended their claim and covered any losses resulting from the title defect. This illustrates the crucial role title insurance plays in mitigating the risks associated with unclear or contested ownership, risks that are amplified when purchasing a property “as is.” The “as is” designation speaks only to the physical condition; it offers no protection against encumbrances on the title.
In conclusion, while “selling a house as is in Wisconsin” focuses attention on the property’s physical state, title insurance addresses a separate but equally critical aspect: the clarity and defensibility of the ownership rights. Title insurance doesn’t negate the need for thorough physical inspections when buying “as is,” but it provides an essential layer of protection against hidden title defects that could jeopardize the entire investment. It represents a proactive measure to mitigate the risks inherent in any real estate transaction, particularly those involving properties with complex histories or those sold in their existing condition without warranties. The decision to forgo title insurance in an “as is” sale is akin to navigating a treacherous river without a map a gamble with potentially devastating consequences.
8. Legal counsel
The decision to transfer property under an “as is” arrangement in Wisconsin initiates a complex interplay of legal duties and potential liabilities. Within this landscape, the counsel of a qualified attorney transcends mere advisement; it becomes a crucial navigational tool, guiding both grantor and grantee through the inherent intricacies of the transaction.
-
Navigating Disclosure Requirements
Imagine a scenario: A seller, aware of past water damage yet uncertain of its long-term impact, hesitates to fully disclose the issue on the Real Estate Condition Report. An attorney can provide definitive guidance on the extent of disclosure required under Wisconsin Statute Chapter 709, safeguarding the seller from future litigation. Conversely, an attorney representing the buyer can scrutinize the disclosure report, identifying potential red flags and advising on further investigation.
-
Drafting and Reviewing Contractual Language
Consider the purchase agreement itself: an “as is” clause drafted with ambiguity or without specific disclaimers can create loopholes that benefit neither party. An attorney can ensure that the contractual language accurately reflects the intent of the parties, clearly defining the scope of the “as is” agreement and allocating risk appropriately. They can clarify terms like “material adverse fact” and ensure compliance with Wisconsin’s Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act.
-
Addressing Title Issues and Encumbrances
Picture a situation where a title search reveals an unresolved lien from a previous contractor. While title insurance offers protection, an attorney can assist in resolving the lien prior to closing, ensuring a cleaner transfer of ownership. Furthermore, they can advise on the implications of easements, restrictive covenants, and other encumbrances that may affect the property’s value and future use, regardless of its “as is” condition.
-
Mitigating Post-Sale Disputes
Envision a scenario where, despite best efforts, a dispute arises after the sale regarding undisclosed defects. An attorney can provide representation in mediation or litigation, protecting their client’s interests and navigating the complexities of Wisconsin real estate law. They can assess the strength of a claim, negotiate settlements, and advocate for their client’s position in court, providing a crucial buffer against potentially devastating financial losses.
In each of these scenarios, legal counsel emerges not as an optional expense, but as an indispensable investment, mitigating risk and ensuring a smoother, more equitable transaction for all parties involved in a Wisconsin real estate conveyance.
Frequently Asked Questions About Conveying Property “As Is” in Wisconsin
Navigating the intricacies of “as is” property sales in Wisconsin often raises numerous questions. The following addresses common concerns, presented through illustrative scenarios that shed light on the nuances of this type of transaction.
Question 1: Does “as is” negate the seller’s responsibility to disclose known defects?
No. Imagine a family inheriting a lakeside cottage. They’re aware of a seasonal leak in the basement but, eager to avoid repairs, list the property “as is.” They erroneously believe this absolves them of disclosing the leak. Wisconsin law, however, compels disclosure of known material adverse facts, regardless of the “as is” designation. Failure to disclose opens the door to potential legal repercussions.
Question 2: Can a buyer still conduct inspections when purchasing “as is”?
Absolutely. Picture a prospective buyer eyeing a fixer-upper. The “as is” listing might suggest a lack of seller guarantees, but it doesn’t preclude the buyer from conducting thorough inspections. They can hire home inspectors, structural engineers, or any other qualified professional to assess the property’s condition. The buyer then makes a purchase decision based on that informed perspective.
Question 3: If a major defect is discovered during inspection, can the buyer back out of an “as is” deal?
Potentially. A buyer discovers extensive termite damage during inspection, a fact previously unknown and undisclosed. The purchase agreement may contain clauses allowing termination if significant defects are uncovered, even in an “as is” sale. Review of the specific contract language is critical, but the discovery can often provide grounds for withdrawal.
Question 4: How does an “as is” sale affect the negotiation of the purchase price?
Consider a buyer interested in a distressed property with a visibly damaged roof. The “as is” condition typically translates to a lower initial asking price, reflecting the understanding that the buyer will assume the cost of repairs. The purchase price negotiation then becomes centered around the estimated cost of those repairs and the buyer’s tolerance for risk.
Question 5: Does title insurance still matter in an “as is” sale?
Indeed, it is critically important. Picture a buyer purchasing an “as is” property only to discover, after closing, that a previous owner had outstanding liens against the property. The physical condition of the property is irrelevant in this case. Title insurance safeguards against these types of hidden claims, protecting the buyer’s investment regardless of the “as is” designation.
Question 6: Can a seller be sued for defects discovered after an “as is” sale?
It’s possible. Imagine a seller knowingly concealing a faulty foundation by covering it with paneling. Even with an “as is” agreement, intentional misrepresentation or failure to disclose known material defects can lead to legal action. The burden of proof rests on the buyer to demonstrate the seller’s knowledge and intent to deceive.
The key takeaway is that “as is” property sales in Wisconsin are not without legal obligations and potential pitfalls. Transparency, due diligence, and a clear understanding of contractual terms are paramount for both sellers and buyers.
The discussion now shifts towards strategies for navigating the potential challenges and maximizing the benefits of this type of transaction.
Tips for Disposing of Property in its Existing State within Wisconsin
Navigating the disposal of residential property in its existing state requires careful planning and diligent execution. The following guidelines will aid in maximizing value while mitigating potential liabilities.
Tip 1: Conduct a Pre-Listing Inspection. Before formally offering the property, engage a qualified home inspector to assess its condition. This upfront investment can reveal hidden defects, allowing for informed pricing and transparent disclosure. This proactive measure can avert future litigation.
Tip 2: Obtain Legal Consultation. Engage an attorney experienced in Wisconsin real estate law. The attorney can provide guidance on disclosure requirements, review purchase agreements, and address potential title issues, ensuring a legally sound transaction.
Tip 3: Prepare a Detailed Disclosure. Compiling a comprehensive disclosure document that honestly and completely reveals all known material adverse facts is paramount. This demonstrates good faith and reduces the likelihood of post-sale disputes. Include historical information, repair records, and any known environmental concerns.
Tip 4: Price the Property Strategically. The asking price should reflect the property’s condition and the costs associated with necessary repairs. Research comparable sales of similar properties in similar condition to establish a competitive and realistic price point. Be prepared to justify the price based on the inspection report and other relevant factors.
Tip 5: Market the Property Effectively. Clearly communicate the “as is” nature of the sale in all marketing materials. Highlight the property’s potential and appeal to buyers seeking renovation opportunities or investment properties. Emphasize the location or unique features that may outweigh the property’s condition.
Tip 6: Require a Thorough Buyer Inspection. Include a clause in the purchase agreement that requires the buyer to conduct their own independent inspection within a specified timeframe. This reinforces the buyer’s responsibility for assessing the property’s condition and reduces potential for future claims.
Tip 7: Consider Multiple Offers. If possible, create a competitive bidding environment to maximize the sale price. Multiple offers can drive up the price and potentially result in more favorable terms for the seller.
By meticulously implementing these recommendations, those relinquishing property in its current state can navigate the intricacies of conveyance with increased confidence and potentially achieve favorable outcomes. Transparency and diligent preparation are key to mitigating risk and ensuring a seamless transfer.
The subsequent concluding remarks will summarize key considerations and provide final guidance.
Concluding Thoughts on Property Transfer in Existing Condition within Wisconsin
The narrative of “selling a house as is in Wisconsin” unfolds as a complex interplay of legal obligations, calculated risks, and pragmatic considerations. The exploration reveals the inherent tension between a seller’s desire to minimize expense and a buyer’s need for transparency and protection. From the mandatory disclosures that pierce the veil of “as is” to the crucial role of independent inspections, each facet underscores the imperative for informed decision-making. Title insurance emerges as a safeguard against unseen encumbrances, while competent legal counsel provides essential guidance through the contractual maze. The negotiated price, ultimately, reflects the balance of risk and potential reward.
The Wisconsin landscape is dotted with properties offered in their existing condition, each representing a unique story of circumstance and opportunity. But regardless of individual motivations, a common thread unites these transactions: the need for unwavering diligence. Whether one stands as the grantor, seeking a swift and uncomplicated transfer, or as the grantee, envisioning a future of restoration and renewal, the path forward demands careful navigation. Let prudence guide the way, transforming potential pitfalls into pathways towards mutually beneficial outcomes, securing the integrity of property transfer within the Badger State.
