Wisconsin Supreme Court's Decision in Associated Bank N.A. v. Collier Changes the Rules for Collecting Judgments

22 July 2014 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

In Wisconsin, supplemental proceedings under Wis. Stat. ch. 816 are the principal tool by which a judgment creditor can discover assets of the judgment debtor in aid of collection. But for the last 15 years, they have also been the mechanism by which sophisticated judgment creditors have obtained a lien in all the personal property of the judgment debtor, simply by serving the debtor with an order to appear before a court commissioner for examination. This was the holding of In re Badger Lines, Inc., 224 Wis. 2d 646, 590 N.W.2d 270 (1999)—that a judgment creditor need not take any additional steps to perfect a so-called receiver’s lien beyond serving the debtor. Badger Lines seemed to some observers at the time to represent a faulty policy choice by the court, in favor of the creation of overbroad secret liens. That had been the conclusion of Bankruptcy Judge James Shapiro in a scholarly analysis reported at 199 B.R. 934 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1996) that the Supreme Court rejected in answering a certified question from the Seventh Circuit. But the 1999 decision recorded no dissent.

All that has changed with the Supreme Court’s latest foray into the subject last week, in Associated Bank N.A. v. Collier, 2014 WI 62

Though Chief Justice Abrahamson’s dissenting characterization of Collier as “blithely” overturning “150 years of Wisconsin jurisprudence” seems a bit over the top, Justice Roggensack’s opinion for the court has effectively overruled Badger Lines, without acknowledging the fact. Collier held that serving an order for supplemental proceedings on the judgment debtor does not give rise to a lien on any of the debtor’s personal property. Rather, to obtain priority over other creditors, a judgment creditor must (1) docket its money judgment; (2) identify specific, non-exempt personal property (presumably by using the opportunity to examine the debtor under oath in the supplemental proceedings); and (3) levy on the specific property it has identified.

Hereafter, merely serving an order to appear for supplemental proceedings will no longer create a common law lien on the debtor’s personal property. Nor will such an order give a judgment creditor an interest superior to those of other secured creditors.  The court adopted a preference for diligence (and disapproval for blanket liens that remove incentives for judgment creditors to locate and levy on a debtor’s personal property), noting that “[t]he law justly rewards the diligent creditor who by his timely efforts succeeds in discovering assets of the debtor which are inequitably withheld from his creditors.”  2014 WI 62, ¶ 48.

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

Insights

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ