See Wilkin v. Shell Oil Co., supra, 197 F.2d at 50.See also Ashworth v. Hankins, 241 Ark. 629, 408 S.W.2d 871 (1966); Pearson v. Logan, 208 Okl. 234, 255 P.2d 255, 258 (1953); Carl v. DeToffol, 223 Minn. 24, 25 N.W.2d 479, 483 (1946); Maedel v. Wies, 309 Mich. 424, 15 N.W.2d 692, 694 (1944); Stuart v. Coleman, 78 Okl. 81, 188 P. 1063, 10 A.L.R. 411 (1920). The effect of these cases is that one who purchases property after a nisi prius judgment has been entered takes the property subject to any changes affecting his title that may take place on appeal.

Although the issue has never been addressed in Wisconsin, both common law and statutory lis pendens have generally been held to apply to divorce actions, because title to real property may be placed in issue in a divorce action. Joneson v. Joneson, 251 Iowa 825, 102 N.W.2d 911, 913-15 (1960); Pearson v. Logan, 208 Okla. 234, 255 P.2d 255, 258 (1953); 1 Freeman, Judgments, sec. 534 (5th ed. 1925); 2 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 635, n. 1a (4th ed. 1918). We conclude, as the parties to this litigation seem to assume, that sec. 840.10, Stats. 1981-82, applies to actions for divorce in Wisconsin in which relief is sought affecting specified described real property in Wisconsin.

Gilchrist v. Sutton, 191 Okla. 117, 127 P.2d 163, 164 [1942]; Bridwell v. Goeske, 200 Okla. 244, 192 P.2d 656, 659 [1948]; Robertson v. Knighten, 192 Okla. 678, 139 P.2d 601, 604 [1943]; Farr v. Spurck, 207 Okla. 136, 248 P.2d 245, 248 [1952]; Independent School Dist. No. 8 v. Hunter, Okla., 414 P.2d 231, 234 [1966].Welch v. Langley, Okla., 264 P.2d 347, 350 [1953]; Pearson v. Logan, 208 Okla. 234, 255 P.2d 255, 259 [1953]; Blanchard v. Reed, supra note 10 at 666; Smith v. Reneau, 188 Okla. 629, 112 P.2d 160, 162 [1941]. The plaintiffs here cannot derive legal comfort from any flaw in the State's title to the fee.