USA Foreclosure Wiki

Premier Community Bank v. Schuh (2010)

4 min read

Premier Community Bank v. Schuh (2010)

Citation: 2010 WI App 111, 329 Wis. 2d 146, 789 N.W.2d 388 · Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals, No. 2009AP1722 · Decided: July 27, 2010 · Opinion: Brunner, J. (panel: Hoover, P.J., Peterson and Brunner, JJ.)

Source note (2026-10-18):

Opinion text retrieved 2026-10-17 from the Caselaw Access Project’s static copy of the Wisconsin Reports, 2d series (static.case.law, volume 329), an unofficial host. The official Wisconsin Statutes annotation to Wis. Stat. §§ 409.333 and 779.43 (2023-24 statutes, published 2026-10-01, retrieved from docs.legis.wisconsin.gov) cites and summarizes the decision.

Facts

Roger Schuh pastured cattle owned by Schuh Cattle Company, LLC (whose members included his son and daughter-in-law) for USD 1.10 per animal per day. The company stopped paying in March 2006 and owed about USD 15,934. In 2006 the company pledged the cattle as collateral for a loan from Premier Community Bank, which perfected its security interest. After the company defaulted, the bank demanded the cattle; Schuh refused, asserting a lien, and the bank sued to enforce its security interest. The circuit court granted Schuh summary judgment.

Holding

Affirmed. A lien under Wis. Stat. § 779.43(3) (“every person pasturing or keeping … animals, shall have a lien thereon and may retain the possession thereof”) is contingent on possession and is therefore a “possessory lien” under Wis. Stat. § 409.333(1), which has priority over the earlier perfected security interest under § 409.333(2).

Reasoning

  • Read together, “shall have a lien” and “may retain the possession” create a lien in favor of the possessor and let the lienholder choose whether to keep possession; if possession is relinquished, the lien is lost (¶ 10).
  • The lien is therefore not an “agricultural lien” requiring a financing-statement filing; the bank’s reliance on M & I W. State Bank v. Wilson, 172 Wis. 2d 357 (Ct. App. 1992) failed because the mechanic there had regained possession before the bank levied (¶¶ 11–12).
  • The Wisconsin Bankers Association’s “secret lien” policy argument was rejected: lenders can protect themselves contractually, for example by restricting movement of the collateral (¶ 13).
  • The family relationship did not take the transaction out of the “ordinary course of business” where Schuh pastured cattle for others at an arm’s-length rate (¶¶ 15–16).

Practical impact

  • Buyers and lenders: in Wisconsin, a garage, marina, livery, boarding-stable or pasturing keeper in possession under § 779.43(3) outranks a prior perfected lender under § 409.333(2); only the marina keeper’s lien is capped by statute (§ 779.43(4)). Collateral held by a keeper is not free of the keeper’s charges.
  • Keepers: the lien depends on keeping possession.

Good-law status

The full opinion holding was independently checked on 2026-10-17 against the official court body. Prior CAP retrieval and its unofficial-host disclosure above are preserved. The current official statutory annotation remains relevant evidence of citation, but is not a complete subsequent-history/citator check. Good-law status remains needs_verification; this does not negate verification of the decision’s narrow historical holding.

Rechecked 2026-10-18: a CourtListener citation search (results retained in schema/verification/wisconsin-evidence-2026-10-18/) for “2010 WI App 111” returned no later Wisconsin opinion; the retained In re Leaver (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2021) decision below follows it. § 779.43(3) and § 409.333 are unchanged in the statutes updated through 2025 Wis. Act 247. No negative treatment located. Not a commercial citator check.

Applies in →

wisconsin · towing-storage-and-mechanics-lien-sales · ucc-article-9-dispositions · toyota-motor-credit-v-north-shore-collision-2011

Independently retrieved later application

The full In re Leaver, 627 B.R. 517 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2021), 12 pages, expressly follows Schuh’s possession requirement. After surrender, the statutory lien was lost; a stipulation could create a contractual security interest but did not itself perfect or prime it. The court recognized administrative-expense entitlement subject to claim amount/further hearing. This is actual positive later treatment, not a comprehensive citator or a holding on an auction buyer’s title.

Legal information, not legal advice. Verify current primary sources before acting.

Graph View

Backlinks