What Happens To My Business Credit Card When I File For Bankruptcy?

Maybe you are a small business owner here in Milwaukee with a business credit card from your local bank. Or maybe your employer has you charge certain expenses to a company credit card. But if you have a business credit card, you are probably wondering what will happen to it if you file for bankruptcy. The answer is every lawyer’s favorite answer — it depends. 

Small Business Owner With A Business Credit Card 

If you are a small business owner, and you have a credit card for your business, it may or may not get pulled into your bankruptcy estate if you file for personal bankruptcy. It depends on how your business is structured and how your business is doing. 

There are so many factors at play in this scenario that you really need to consult with an experienced bankruptcy attorney to figure out what will happen in your specific situation. 

The Corporate Credit Card 

If your employer wants you to use a credit card to pay for work-related expenses, what happens to that card if you file for bankruptcy depends once again on your specific situation. 

There are two basic types of corporate credit card accounts — authorized user accounts and obligor accounts. 

An authorized user account is an account that is in your employer’s name. You are authorized to make business-related purchases with it, but the employer is the one paying the bill. If you file bankruptcy, you probably won’t have to list the account in the paperwork you file with the court since it’s not in your name. You should be able to continue using this card during your bankruptcy for work-related expenses and after your case is over since the card is owned and paid for by your employer. 

If you have a credit card that you use for work-related expenses on your company’s behalf, but the card is in your name and you are personally responsible for paying the bill (and then submitting paperwork to get reimbursed by your company), the account is an obligor account. 

This card will likely need to be disclosed to the court when you file your bankruptcy case. If there is a balance on the card, it will need to be reported as a debt you owe even if all of the debt will eventually be reimbursed by your company. 

The bank that backs this credit card will probably shut it down, so your company will need to either give you a new card where you are just an authorized user or work out some other arrangement. 

Your bankruptcy attorney can help you figure out what kind of card you have and what actions need to be taken to move your bankruptcy forward. 

Do you need to tell your employer you are filing for bankruptcy if you have a company credit card? 

It’s really none of your employer’s business if you file for personal bankruptcy, but if you have a company credit card it becomes of interest to them. In most cases, it is better for you to tell your employer what is going on than for them to find out from the court or from the credit card company. 

Looking for advice? 

Working with an experienced bankruptcy attorney will smooth the bankruptcy process and ensure that your business credit cards are treated appropriately. If you are looking for advice on this topic, please contact our office in Milwaukee to schedule an appointment.

Can We Keep the Cabin?

Owning a cabin “Up North” is a Wisconsin tradition going back generations. Whether it is a two-room shack with no running water or a newly built mansion with its own boathouse, Wisconsinites love their weekend get-aways. When we talk to a client that is considering filing for bankruptcy, we often get questions about what will happen to the family’s vacation home. 

The answer is every lawyer’s favorite answer — it depends. It depends on who actually owns the property, whether the property is owned outright or has a mortgage or liens attached to it, and what chapter of the bankruptcy code the debtor is filing under. 

Who owns the property? 

Many Wisconsin vacation homes are owned by more than one person. Sometimes brothers and sisters share ownership of a home that was purchased by mom and dad years ago. Sometimes the home is owned by a trust but primarily used by the person filing for bankruptcy. This complicated things, but it is so common there is a lot of case law we can rely on when we argue that a particular property should be saved. 

In general, it is easier for a debtor to hold on to a cabin that is owned by several family members or a trust than one that is owned by the debtor alone. 

How much equity is there in the cabin? 

This may seem counterintuitive, but if a vacation home is debt-free it may be more difficult to keep out of the bankruptcy estate. If the debtor has a lot of equity in his or her vacation home, and selling it would help pay off the creditors, the bankruptcy trustee may decide it would be best to sell it. 

If there is not going to be a lot of meat on the bone after the sale is made, commissions are paid, and liens are paid off, the trustee may decide it is not worth the effort to sell the property. 

What chapter of the code is the filing under? 

People who file for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code should be prepared to see their second home sold off. Chapter 7 is a liquidation bankruptcy, and the property is just another asset, no matter how much sentimental value it holds. 

Filing under Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code may allow a debtor to hold on to a second home if the debtor will be able to pay off their creditors through the Chapter 13 repayment plan process.

You Are Not Alone

Keep in mind that all this is just general information, if you want advice about what to do in your specific situation, you need to contact our office in Milwaukee to make an appointment. There are around 188,000 seasonal or recreational homes in Wisconsin, and you will not be the first owner our office has advised who would do anything to hold on to their little slice of heaven Up North.

Debt Restructuring Fails To Save Sand Mine From Bankruptcy

Earlier this year, one of the biggest sand mining companies in the state of Wisconsin entered into a debt restructuring agreement with its lenders in a last-ditch effort to stave off bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the move didn’t work, and the company has now declared bankruptcy, but it is an interesting example of what tactics can be tested before a company resorts to bankruptcy

Sand mining is a thing? 

If you were unaware that sand is big business, you may want to check out this story from 99% Invisible that explains why “[s]and is actually the most important solid substance on Earth… It’s the literal foundation of modern civilization.”

And it turns out that the sand found in our state, which is known as “Northern White” to those in the sand industry, is exceptionally good sand — hard and round. So good, in fact, it was being shipped clear to Texas for use in the frac mining industry. 

The frac mining boom set off a corresponding sand mining boom in Wisconsin. From 2011 to 2014 they couldn’t dig the stuff out of the ground fast enough. However, shipping sand across the country is expensive. So, frac miners in Texas started looking for sand closer to home. What they found wasn’t as good, but it was good enough that the demand for Wisconsin sand dropped. At around the same time, the price of oil fell and the demand for frac sand dropped overall as oil producers slowed production. And that’s where we are today — Wisconsin still has great sand, but it is not worth what it once was.

Staving Off Bankruptcy 

Earlier this year, Emerge Energy Services LP, which owns Superior Silica Sands, entered into a debt restructuring agreement with its lenders. The deal would clear Emerge Energy’s debt obligations while making its lenders the new majority shareholders of the company.

Debt restructuring is a common tactic in the business world and one we have helped both creditors and debtors navigate. When it is successful, it can keep a company out of bankruptcy while preserving assets and maintaining production. Keeping the company up and running can also prevent one shutdown from turning into a chain reaction that pushes a whole industry or supply chain into bankruptcy. 

Unfortunately for Emerge Energy, the debt restructuring negotiations failed and the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Daily Reporter pulled the company’s court filings and found that it “owes creditors across the country some $338 million. A list of the company’s 30 largest creditors in court documents includes seven companies that have their headquarters in Wisconsin. Emerge says it owes these firms more than $13 million in total.” 

Hopefully, Emerge Energy’s bankruptcy will not push its creditors into insolvency as well. It may, however, be just the first of many sand companies in our state that files for bankruptcy protection. There are 128 frac sand facilities operating in the state, all producing more sand than the market can bear. 

Bankruptcy Leads to Perkins Restaurant Closures

For the second time in eight years, Perkins & Marie Callender’s Holding LLC, the company which operates Perkins restaurants, filed for bankruptcy. The last time the company filed was back in 2011. Back then the company filed as a holding of the investment group led by Wayzata Investment Partners, which still controls close to 73 percent of the company. Following this bankruptcy filing, there have been Perkins restaurant closures across Wisconsin and other states. Currently, two Perkins locations in Madison remain open as well as those located in Wisconsin Dells and Onalaska.

Perkins Restaurant Closures Amidst Company Filing for Bankruptcy

A Memphis, Tennessee based company, Perkins & Marie Callender’s LLC, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The filings reveal that the company owes around $100 million to lenders and liabilities totaling $100 million to $500 million. The company’s assets are only valued at $50 to $100 million. The bankruptcy filing indicated that poor financial performance was the result in a decline in sales within both the family dining and casual dining industries. The company has secured $7.75 million in bankruptcy loans, according to court records. The loans are what is referred to as debtor-in-possession financing and are secured in order to continue operating.

The company is in the midst of restructuring and has closed over 19 Marie Callender’s and 10 Perkins. Over 1,000 employees have been affected by this. The company hopes to minimize any further disruptions and loss of employment by making a smooth process of selling off parts of the company and helping ease the transition. Perkins, founded back in 1958, has 342 restaurants in the U.S. and Canada.

Perkins & Marie Callender’s LLC filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court located in Wilmington, DE. While any final sale or other finances would need to be approved by the bankruptcy judge, the company is planning to sell the Perkins portion of the business as well as part of its Foxtail bakery business to Perkins Group LLC. This, referred to as a “stalking horse” bid, lays the foundation for the court-supervised auction of the company’s assets that is likely to take place in September. There are also negotiations underway to sell off parts of Marie Callender, the smaller of the two restaurant brands within the company. There are currently 51 Marie Callender stores operating in the U.S.

Experienced Bankruptcy Attorneys

Bankruptcy involves complex negotiations and company restructuring. There is a lot at stake during all of this. People’s jobs, their livelihoods, and their financial futures hang in the balance along with the future of the company. At Hanson & Payne, our experienced bankruptcy attorneys know how to handle these delicate and complicated matters to protect the best interests of our clients. We are here to discuss your options and to represent you throughout the bankruptcy proceedings. Contact us today.

Will Bankruptcy Allow PG&E to Shirk Responsibility for the Camp Fire?

Last fall, the “Camp Fire” burned over 150,000 acres of land and killed 85 people in Northern California. Although investigators have determined how the fire was started, it is unclear whether the responsible party will be brought to justice. The reason why? They have declared bankruptcy. 

The Fire

Like most other Wisconsinites, who are not accustomed to seeing such horrors in our part of the country, the attorneys in our office were shocked by the news reports and viral video clips from the Camp Fire. Walls of flame devoured everything in their path — including many people who were trapped in their cars. It is still sickening to think of. 

Investigators determined the fire was caused by electrical transmission lines owned and operated by Pacific Gas and Electricity (PG&E). On the hook for billions of dollars in damage, the utility company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection

The Bankruptcy 

When PG&E filed for bankruptcy, it became the largest utility to ever do so. The company is reportedly over $50 billion in debt, not counting the amount it will owe to victims of the Camp Fire under California’s strict fire liability laws. 

When a company is facing this sort of massive, unknown liability, bankruptcy is often the best option — for everyone involved. Why? Our bankruptcy laws require that every creditor be paid if at all possible, while at the same time allowing the business to move forward. 

Perhaps fire victims will not be paid back for 100% of their losses, but allowing PG&E to restructure and continue operating rather than shutting down will ensure they get something.

It is likely that the bankruptcy court will estimate the fire damages, direct PG&E to come up with some percentage of that amount, then require victims to make claims on that fund while barring future lawsuits. 

Not Shirking Their Duty

Companies who file for bankruptcy in the face of lawsuits are not shirking their responsibility to the public. They are taking advantage of the law to create some certainty in an uncertain situation. Filing for bankruptcy hits pause on all other litigation involving the company and pulls some lawsuits into the bankruptcy process. 

Knowing a defendant is bankrupt, or will be if a major verdict comes down against them, incentivizes the potential plaintiffs to negotiate a solution that will allow all plaintiffs — instead of just the first to file — to get some sort of compensation. There’s probably not enough money to compensate everyone fully, especially if the company has lots of other debt, but the bankruptcy process ensures victims are treated fairly and equally. 

It will be interesting to see how the PG&E case moves forward since the amounts at stake are so large. It may also set the precedent for future cases across the country where a man-made natural disaster wreaks havoc. We will be keeping a close eye on it. 

If your business is facing legal debts that may drive it into bankruptcy, Hanson & Payne LLC is ready to advise you and guide you through the process. Contact us today to schedule an initial consultation.

Choosing State or Federal Bankruptcy Exemptions

Wisconsin Bankruptcy

When you file for bankruptcy, you can protect certain property from sale to satisfy your creditors. You do this by classifying the property as “exempt,” meaning it is exempt from the reach of creditors. If you are filing for bankruptcy in Wisconsin, you have the ability to choose whether you want to claim state or federal bankruptcy exemptions. Wisconsin is one of the few states that allows for this and it can be a huge advantage should you weigh out your options and choose wisely.

Choosing State or Federal Bankruptcy Exemptions

With Chapter 13 bankruptcy, you get to retain both exempt and nonexempt property. You will be responsible for paying back property value to your creditors through an established payment plan executed over several years. With Chapter 7 bankruptcy, however, the bankruptcy trustee has the authority to sell the property to satisfy creditors. Property that is eligible to be sold to benefit creditors is called “nonexempt.” “Exempt” property will be protected from sale.

Additionally, if you file Chapter 13 bankruptcy, exemptions can be used in order to reduce the amount of money that you will be required to pay to satisfy your unsecured creditors. If you are concerned about losing specific property in bankruptcy proceedings, there are several strategies you may employ to protect it. One such strategy is through the use of exemptions. In Wisconsin, you not only can choose some property as exempt, but you can choose between the Wisconsin exemption scheme and the federal exemption scheme. The schemes differ in several key respects. Choosing the one that best protects your assets is important. You must choose one scheme or the other. You cannot pick and choose from both the Wisconsin and federal exemption schemes.

Some of the more notable exemptions for those choosing the Wisconsin state scheme include:

  • $75,000 homestead exemption
  • $4,000 motor vehicle exemption
  • $12,000 consumer goods exemption
  • $5,000 savings and checking accounts exemption

These amounts double if you are married and are jointly filing for bankruptcy with your spouse. This is also true for the amounts of notable exemptions in the federal state, which include:

  • $22,975 homestead exemption
  • $3,675 motor vehicle exemption
  • $12,250 household goods exemption
  • $1,225 exemption applicable to anything you own (referred to as the “wild card” exemption

Also, under both schemes, most retirement accounts are fully protected.

Wisconsin Bankruptcy Attorneys Protecting Your Best Interests

You can get through bankruptcy without losing everything. The fact that Wisconsin allows you to choose between federal and state exemptions is a big advantage and it is a significant decision to make, one of many that will present itself in the bankruptcy process. Hanson & Payne, LLC will help you evaluate your options and make sure you are choosing the scheme that maximizes property protection benefits in your individual case. Let our knowledgeable bankruptcy attorneys protect your best interests as you move forward through the bankruptcy process. Contact us today.

Cram What? The Bankruptcy Tool With The Weird Name

Have you ever tried to give a cat a pill? It’s not a pleasant task. You have to pry open its jaws, cram the pill down the poor thing’s throat, then cross your fingers and hope it doesn’t decide to cough it up and force you to start the process all over. 

Now, imagine the cat is a creditor watching one of its debtors go through the Chapter 13 bankruptcy process. They want to get paid back for the money they have loaned out. They don’t want the debt they are owed to be forgiven or renegotiated. So sometimes the court has to cram a solution favoring the debtor down the creditor’s throat. 

Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code outlines what has become known as the cramdown process for the way it is crammed down the throats of creditors. It allows a Chapter 13 bankruptcy court to reduce the amount of an outstanding loan to match the value of the property securing it. 

What debt can be crammed down? 

Only certain types of debt can be crammed down. The biggest restriction is that the debt must be secured debt. A secured debt is a debt that is tied to a piece of real estate or personal property — like a car or a piece of furniture — that can be repossessed by the creditor if the debtor fails to repay his or her debts. 

The law further restricts cramdowns by preventing the courts from cramming down the mortgage on the debtor’s primary residence. Mortgages on investment properties may be crammed down, but only if the debtor can repay the debt fully during the 3 to 5 year Chapter 13 process. 

Loans on personal property — things that can be owned other than real estate —- can all be crammed down if they were purchased more than a year before the debtor filed for bankruptcy. It is common to cramdown loans on household goods like appliances and furniture. 

The most common type of cramdown is a bit harder to get, and that is a cramdown on a car loan. Other than a home, a car is the most expensive item most people will ever purchase. In order to prevent debtors from buying a car, and then cramming the loan down as the vehicle’s value drops, the cramdown law says car loans cannot be crammed down unless the car was purchased over 910 days prior to the bankruptcy filing. This works out to around 2 ½ years. 

An example of this bankruptcy tool

This is probably easier to understand with a little example. Say there is a debtor who has filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and this is what they owe and how much that same property is actually worth:

  • Primary Residence worth $300,000 with a $450,000 mortgage
  • Rental Property worth $200,000 with a $250,000 mortgage
  • Furniture purchased 2 years ago, now worth $500, with a $1200 loan
  • 5-month-old dishwasher worth $200 with a $500 loan
  • Car 1, purchased 5 years ago, worth $7,000 with a $10,000 loan
  • Car 2, worth $25,000, purchased last year with a $30,000 loan

If the court does a cramdown, the following debts will remain: 

  • The mortgage on the primary residence cannot be crammed down.
  • The mortgage on the rental property may be crammed down to $200,000 if the debtor can pay off that amount during the Chapter 13 process. 
  • The furniture was purchased more than a year ago, so the loan can be crammed down to $500.
  • The dishwasher was purchased less than a year ago, so the loan cannot be crammed down. 
  • Car 1 was purchased more than 910 days ago, so the loan can be crammed down to $7,000.
  • Car 2 was purchased too close to the date of the bankruptcy filing to cramdown the loan. 

Another Tool In The Bankruptcy Toolbox

Cramdowns are another tool in the court’s bankruptcy toolbox. Working with an experienced Milwaukee bankruptcy attorney will ensure that the cramdown process is properly navigated by both creditors and debtors. 

Creditors Beware: Attempting To Collect After A Discharge Could Get You In Big Trouble

Although bankruptcy law is federal law, very few bankruptcy cases make it up to the Supreme Court. So, it is notable that the Justices delivered a unanimous decision in a bankruptcy case near the end of the court term that ended in June. In Taggart v. Lorenzen, the High Court made it clear that creditors who attempt to collect a debt after one has been granted a discharge will find themselves in big trouble. 

Taggert v. Lorenzen

Taggart v. Lorenzen is a complex case, as most cases that make their way up to the highest court are. If you are curious about the underlying facts, you can check out this summary from Oyez, or this one from SCOTUSblog. It is the court’s holding that we are going to talk about. 

In an opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the Court held that creditors who try to collect a debt after a discharge can be sanctioned for contempt of court not only if they knew what they were doing was wrong, but also if there was “no objectively reasonable basis” of their understanding of the discharge order or the statutes that govern its scope. 

This ruling has important implications because there are many circumstances where debts survive a bankruptcy discharge and can still be collected. When a debt survives, the creditor may try to collect it, and that is okay. But if a debt has been discharged, the creditor must write it off, and should not, under any circumstances, try to collect. The problem is there are a lot of debts in the gray area that may or may not be discharged, depending on the circumstances. 

A creditor who is owed a debt that may still exist needs to be extra careful and ensure the debt was not discharged before it makes any attempt to collect. Otherwise, the creditor may be found in civil contempt, which means they can be fined by the court. 

Creditors who want to collect debts owed by a person or entity that has filed for bankruptcy would be wise to consult with an experienced bankruptcy attorney. The accuracy of the advice you take could make the difference between collecting a debt and getting charged a hefty and embarrassing fine. 

Contact Our Milwaukee Bankruptcy Lawyer

Our firm has years of experience helping both creditors and debtors navigate the bankruptcy system, so we are in a good position to advise our clients even in tricky gray-area situations. 

Judge Rejects Shopko’s Bankruptcy Plan

On January 16th, Wisconsin based retail chain Shopko filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company reported having less than $1 billion in assets with outstanding liabilities, running somewhere between $1 billion and $10 billion. As part of bankruptcy proceedings, the U.S. Bankruptcy court had Shopko officials, along with creditors, attorneys and other consultants, draft a bankruptcy plan and submit it to the court for approval. Despite most relevant parties expressing approval for the plan, as well as U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Thomas Saladino supporting the effort drafting the plan, Judge Saladino had to ultimately reject it.

Why Was Shopko’s Bankruptcy Plan Rejected?

Under the plan submitted to Judge Saladino, all of Shopko’s bank debt would have been paid off by July. Additionally, the majority of administrative claims would have been paid and a $15.5 million payback from Sun Capital would have been secured. On top of all this, there may have been some money left over to pay some of the unsecured creditors. Why then was this bankruptcy plan rejected by the court? One of the major creditors, McKesson Corporation, told the judge that it had civil fraud claims against no less than four Shopko executives. The plan would have banned all potential claims against Shopko.

McKesson Corp. explained to the bankruptcy court that Shopko executives made false promises in order to keep medication supplies coming to Shopko pharmacies for as long as possible. Shopko never paid for these supplies and McKesson asserts that Shopko owes the company close to $70 million. Although the amount has since been reduced, McKesson maintains that Shopko still owes them $55 million. Furthermore, McKesson alleges that Shopko executives are using the bankruptcy plan to avoid being sued for fraud in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is the company’s state headquarters. Shopko counters by saying McKesson Corp. is being spiteful in holding up the otherwise supported bankruptcy plan.

What are Shopko’s options?

At this point, Shopko has several options in how to proceed. The company may opt to submit another plan. Right now, Shopko has the exclusive right to submit a plan, but this is only for a limited time. If they fail to submit a plan for approval, other parties of the case, including McKesson, could submit their own proposed plans.

Shopko may also want to consider converting the proceedings from chapter 11 bankruptcy to chapter 7. With chapter 11 bankruptcy, there is still a chance that the company could reorganize and continue moving forward. Under chapter 7 bankruptcy, the court would appoint a trustee that would assume control of the company from the executives. Judge Saladino left the decision of how to proceed up to Shopko.

Trusted Bankruptcy Attorneys

No matter your reason for considering bankruptcy, the road ahead may be difficult. There will be countless questions and concerns that will arise. The dedicated Milwaukee bankruptcy attorneys at Hanson & Payne are here to answer your questions and support you throughout the bankruptcy process. Contact us today.

What Is Replevin? Rare Car Stolen From A Milwaukee Man Provides An Unusual But Perfect Example

“Replevin” is the epitome of legalese. It’s Latin mixed with French. It’s not used in everyday conversation. But it is often thrown around in bankruptcy cases as if everyone knows exactly what it means.

The truth is most people don’t know what it is.

So what is replevin? According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, replevin is “an action originating in common law and now largely codified by which a plaintiff having a right in personal property which is claimed to be wrongfully taken or detained by the defendant seeks to recover possession of the property and sometimes to obtain damages for the wrongful detention.”

Breaking this definition down is helpful. It’s a legal action. It is brought by a plaintiff who believes the defendant has wrongfully taken (stolen) or detained (failed to return) a piece of personal property (which means any sort of thing, but not land). The plaintiff wants the property back, and may also want paid for the hassle.

Right now, there is an unusual case pending in the Wisconsin Supreme Court that provides a good example of how a replevin action actually works.

In 2001, thieves broke into the old Monarch Plastic Products factory on Milwaukee’s lower east side and stole a disassembled French sports car that its elderly owner had been trying to restore since 1967. The car, a 1938 Talbot Lago T150 C teardrop coupe, was worth around $7 million.

Not only was the car stolen, so were all the documents and spare parts related to it. Other valuable items in the factory-turned-garage were not touched. There was no sign of a forced entry, but in a sinister turn of events the phone lines to the owner’s house were cut the same day the car was stolen.

In 2005, the car’s owner passed away. He left his entire estate, including the rights to the stolen car, to his cousin, Richard “Skip” Mueller. A few years later, Mueller sold a majority share of the right to own the car to Joseph L. Ford III, who has experience tracking down rare stolen cars.

Then things went quiet, and it seemed like the car was gone forever. But in 2016, the authorities alerted Mueller and Ford that someone was trying to title a now completely restored Talbot with the same chassis number in Illinois!

Mueller and Ford demanded the return of the stolen car, but the man who had purchased it, Rick Workman, refused. Workman claims he had no idea the car was stolen. He purchased it in good faith from a Europen dealer.

So in February 2017, Mueller and Ford filed a replevin action against the company Workman used to purchase the car, TL90108, LLC.

It’s a case that fits the definition of replevin to a T. Mueller and Ford, the plaintiffs, are the rightful owners of a piece of personal property, the Talbot. They are suing the defendant, TL90108, LLC, for the return of the vehicle.

Unfortunately, this case is not as simple as the definition of replevin makes it sound. Wisconsin has a six year statute of limitations in replevin cases. A replevin action must be filed within six years from when the property was first “converted” aka stolen or wrongfully detained.

Mueller and Ford think the countdown clock should have started when they demanded Workman return the car and he refused. Workman says the clock had already run out by that time because it started the day the car was stolen.

It is unclear who is right, so the Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case and decide when the statute of limitations clock starts ticking in a replevin case. Our firm represents clients in replevin cases, so we are keeping a close eye on this case.