Crown Castle USA, Inc. v. Orion Construction Group, LLC: Removing a Tool From the Collection Lawyer's Toolbox

26 March 2012 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog
Author(s): Thomas L. Shriner Jr

In Crown Castle USA, Inc. v. Orion Construction Group, LLC, No. 09AP3029 (Wis. Sup. Ct., Mar. 22, 2012), the Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision that will be surprising to collections practitioners, concluded that a Wisconsin judgment creditor, in proceedings supplemental to entry of judgment, may not compel anyone but the judgment debtor itself to testify about the debtor’s assets. 

Crown Castle obtained a judgment against Orion Construction, a limited liability company. Orion Construction’s sole member was Douglas Larson, also the sole member of another LLC called Orion Logistics, an entity that played no part in the transaction between Crown Castle and Orion Construction. At a supplemental proceeding before a court commissioner under Wis. Stat. § 816.03(1)((b), Orion Construction produced financial records that were skimpy and useless for collection purposes. So Crown Castle asked for and obtained an order from the commissioner for the business records of all entities in which Larson had an interest, obviously hoping to uncover evidence of transfers of Orion Construction’s assets or other information to help Crown Castle collect its judgment. Orion Construction resisted on the ground that the statute gives judgment creditors no right to compel anyone but the judgment debtor itself to appear and answer questions in a supplemental proceeding.  

The circuit court and the Court of Appeals sided with the creditor, but the Supreme Court reversed. The applicable statute, § 816.06, says that, at a supplemental hearing, the “judgment debtor may be examined on oath and testimony on the part of either party may be offered.” The court focused particularly on a 1935 amendment that deleted language from this statute stating that “witnesses may be required to appear and testify.”  Op. ¶ 35. Accordingly, the court read the current statute to permit the testimony of witnesses other than the debtor only if they appear voluntarily. The dissent thought that the 1935 amendment may have been intended merely to streamline the statute’s language, in light of the ability under § 885.01(1) (still on the books) to compel the testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence “in any action, matter or proceeding,” including a supplemental hearing. Op. ¶ 75.

Regardless of which of the justices correctly read the statute and its history, judgment creditors now lack the tool that they have used most effectively in the past to find evidence of concealment of assets and other debtor fraud. Until the Legislature amends the statute, creditors’ lawyers may well find their imaginations challenged and their collection efforts stymied.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services