Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Time-barred – Replevin

By: Derek Hawkins//March 18, 2020//

Time-barred – Replevin

By: Derek Hawkins//March 18, 2020//

Listen to this article

WI Supreme Court

Case Name: Richard A. Mueller, et al. v. TL90108, LLC,

Case No.: 2020 WI 7

Focus: Time-barred – Replevin

A late 1930s Talbot Lago is considered by some one of the most beautiful and innovative cars in the world. This collector’s gem sang such a siren song that it became the subject of an international smuggling effort at the heart of today’s case. The Talbot Lago here——a 1938 model—— mysteriously disappeared from a Milwaukee business in 2001. It reappeared in 2015 after being purchased in Europe by TL90108, LLC (TL). When TL tried to obtain title in Illinois, it triggered a hit on a stolen vehicle report.

After hearing that the prized vehicle had turned up, Plaintiffs Richard Mueller and Joseph Ford III demanded its return from TL, claiming to be the rightful owners. When TL did not oblige, Mueller and Ford brought an action for replevin seeking possession of the vehicle and damages. The circuit court, however, granted TL’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the claim was barred by the applicable six-year statutes of repose. Wis. Stat. §§ 893.35, 893.51(1) (2017-18).2 The court of appeals reversed, holding that when Mueller and Ford demanded TL return the vehicle, this triggered a wrongful detention claim and restarted the six-year repose clock.

The core issue we address today is whether the six-year statutes of repose bar Mueller and Ford’s action for replevin. More specifically, we address whether a wrongful detention claim may exist for previously converted property, and if so, when a replevin cause of action based on a subsequent wrongful detention accrues. We conclude that under the plain language of the statutes of repose and our cases, the true owner can maintain a replevin action for wrongful detention against a subsequent purchaser of converted property. We hold that under Wis. Stat. §§ 893.35 and 893.51(1), a cause of action for replevin based on wrongful detention under facts like those alleged here accrues when the subsequent purchaser obtains the property; no demand is necessary.

Thus, for purposes of the motion to dismiss, the replevin action based on TL’s alleged wrongful detention of the vehicle accrued when TL obtained (and thereby wrongfully detained) the vehicle. TL purchased the prized vehicle sometime in 2015. Hence, Mueller and Ford’s cause of action for replevin is not barred by the relevant statutes of repose.

Affirmed in part. Reversed in part.

Concur:

Dissent:

Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests