Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations
Chapter 425 - Consumer transactions — remedies and penalties.
425.206 - Nonjudicial enforcement limited.

425.206 Nonjudicial enforcement limited.
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no merchant may take possession of collateral or goods subject to a consumer lease in this state except when any of the following apply:
(a) The customer has surrendered the collateral or leased goods.
(b) Judgment for the merchant has been entered in a proceeding for recovery of collateral or leased goods under s. 425.205, or for possession of the collateral or leased goods under s. 425.203 (2).
(c) The merchant has taken possession of collateral or leased goods pursuant to s. 425.207 (2).
(d) For motor vehicle collateral or goods subject to a motor vehicle consumer lease, the customer has not made a demand as specified in s. 425.205 (1g) (a) 3. and, no sooner than 15 days after the merchant gives the notice specified in s. 425.205 (1g) (a), the merchant has taken possession of the collateral or goods in accordance with sub. (2).
(2) In taking possession of collateral or leased goods, no merchant may do any of the following:
(a) Commit a breach of the peace.
(b) Enter a dwelling used by the customer as a residence except at the voluntary request of a customer.
(3) A violation of this section is subject to s. 425.305.
History: 1971 c. 239; 1975 c. 94 s. 3; 1975 c. 407; 1979 c. 10; 1995 a. 225; 1997 a. 302; 2005 a. 255.
Under the facts of the case, the customer did not voluntarily surrender collateral under sub. (1) (a). Wachal v. Ketterhagen Motor Sales, Inc., 81 Wis. 2d 605, 260 N.W.2d 770 (1978).
Notwithstanding s. 421.201 (5), this section governed repossessions outside the state when the contract provided for enforcement under the “internal law" of Wisconsin. First Wisconsin National Bank of Madison v. Nicolaou, 85 Wis. 2d 393, 270 N.W.2d 582 (Ct. App. 1978).
A “breach of the peace" under sub. (2) has the same meaning as in s. 409.503. Repossession in disregard of the debtor's oral protest is a breach of the peace. Punitive damages may be appropriate as the result of the breach of the peace. Hollibush v. Ford Motor Co., 179 Wis. 2d 799, 508 N.W.2d 449 (Ct. App. 1993).
Repossession under an invalid judgment violates this section. Kett v. Community Credit Plan, Inc., 228 Wis. 2d 1, 596 N.W.2d 786 (1999), 97-3620.
The Department of Financial Institutions has promulgated a definition of “dwelling" for purposes of s. 422.419 (1) (a) that includes any garage, shed, barn, or other building on the premises whether attached or unattached. There is no reason why “dwelling" should have different meaning in sub. (2) (b). Therefore, the defendants violated sub. (2) (b) when they repossessed the debtor's vehicle while it was parked in the shared garage on the ground floor of her multi-unit apartment complex. Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc., 2020 WI App 54, 393 Wis. 2d 814, 948 N.W.2d 419, 19-1365.
There is no language in the statute that supports an interpretation of the phrase “dwelling used by the customer as a residence" under sub. (2) (b) as turning on considerations of ownership or the right to exclude. The phrase also does not narrow the protections of sub. (2) to the portion of a multi-unit dwelling that the debtor actually uses as living quarters. Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc., 2020 WI App 54, 393 Wis. 2d 814, 948 N.W.2d 419, 19-1365.
The legislature used the phrase “dwelling used by the customer as a residence" to specify that it is the “customer's dwelling" that the merchant may not enter. In other words, a merchant may not enter the customer's dwelling, but the merchant does not violate the Wisconsin Consumer Act if the merchant enters some other person's dwelling in the course of a repossession. Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc., 2020 WI App 54, 393 Wis. 2d 814, 948 N.W.2d 419, 19-1365.
A lender, not its repossessors, falls within the definition of “merchant" under s. 421.301 (25) and is therefore covered by sub. (2) (a). In this case, it was the lender's authority to repossess the debtor's car that the repossession company was exercising. That the lender chose to authorize the repossession company to exercise the lender's right under Wisconsin law to take possession of its collateral extra-judicially does not mean the lender can avoid liability for actions taken on its behalf and at its request. Gable v. Universal Acceptance Corp. (WI), 338 F. Supp. 3d 943 (2018).
The Abolition of Self-Help Repossession: The Poor Pay Even More. White. 1973 WLR 503.
The Impact of Denying Self-Help Repossession of Automobiles: A Case Study of the Wisconsin Consumer Act. Whitford & Laufer. 1975 WLR 607.
Wisconsin's New Automobile Repossession Law: Creditors in the Driver's Seat. Anderson & Meili. Wis. Law. Feb. 2007.