Mueller v. TL90108, LLC

• Decision Date: 24 July 2018
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 2017AP1962
• Citation: 383 Wis.2d 740,917 N.W.2d 551,2018 WI App 52
• Parties: Richard A. MUELLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, Joseph L. Ford, III, Plaintiff-Co-Appellant, v. TL90108, LLC, Defendant-respondent
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals

383 Wis.2d 740

917 N.W.2d 551

2018 WI App 52

Richard A. MUELLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,Joseph L. Ford, III, Plaintiff-Co-Appellant,

v.TL90108, LLC, Defendant-respondent^.†

Appeal No. 2017AP1962

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Submitted on Briefs: May 1, 2018

Filed July 24, 2018

On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Matthew V. Fisher and Brian C. Tokarz of Meissner Tierney Fisher & Nichols S.C. of Milwaukee.

On behalf of the plaintiff-co-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Joseph L. Ford III, pro se.

On behalf of the defendant-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Stephen E. Kravit and Brian T. Fahl of Kravit, Hovel & Krawczyk S.C. of Milwaukee and Lawrence H. Heftman and Robert Middleton of Schiff Hardin LLP of Chicago, Illinois.

Before Brennan, Brash and Dugan, JJ.

BRENNAN, J.

¶ 1 Plaintiffs Richard A. Mueller and Joseph L. Ford, III, appeal an order granting TL90108, LLC’s (TL) motion to dismiss their complaint, filed in 2017, seeking replevin and declaratory judgment. Plaintiffs sought to recover possession of a 1938 Talbot Lago, a vintage car worth more than seven million dollars. The car and related documents including the title had been reported stolen on March 4, 2001, when the owner discovered that they were missing from his Milwaukee garage. Milwaukee police investigated and discovered fraudulent documents that had been used to ship the car to Europe. Fifteen years later, TL applied for title to the car in Illinois after purchasing the car through international auto brokers, and the application triggered a hit in the stolen car database. Before plaintiffs filed this action, they had made an unsuccessful demand on TL for the return of the vehicle.

¶ 2 The trial court held that under WIS. STAT. § 893.35 (2015-16),¹ which states that the cause of action accrues "at the time the wrongful taking or conversion occurs, or the wrongful detention begins[,]" the cause of action accrued when the car was converted by the unknown thief in 2001, and the six-year time limitation began to run "at the time of the wrongful taking or conversion, which was when the car was stolen." The trial court held that because this action was not commenced within that time limit, it is barred under § 893.35.

¶ 3 We hold that this cause of action accrued at the time of the wrongful detention , not wrongful taking or conversion, when TL declined to return the car when plaintiffs demanded it. Because the action was commenced within six years of the time the cause of action accrued, it is not time-barred. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with our decision. Because we decide this case on statutory grounds, we do not address the parties’ alternative arguments on equitable estoppel and public policy concerns.

BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The complaint alleges the following facts, which we accept as true for purposes of reviewing the grant of the motion to dismiss. Kaloti Enters. , Inc. v. Kellogg Sales Co. , 2005 WI 111, ¶ 11, 283 Wis.2d 555, 699 N.W.2d 205.

¶ 5 On the morning of March 4, 2001, Roy Leiske arrived at his place of business in Milwaukee and discovered that his office had been ransacked and that the custom-built antique Talbot Lago two-door coupe he was restoring in the warehouse was gone, along with documents related to the car. Leiske had purchased the car, unrestored and disassembled, more than thirty years earlier in 1967. He had received the car’s certificate of title on July 3, 1968, from the Wisconsin Department of Motor Vehicles.

¶ 6 Leiske reported the theft to the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD). MPD detectives learned that witnesses had seen two men loading a truck at the warehouse early on the day of the theft. MPD detectives also found fraudulent and forged documents that were created in order to ship the car to Europe after the theft.

¶ 7 Mueller inherited the car from Leiske, who died in 2005.²

¶ 8 In 2016, TL sought to title the car in Illinois after purchasing it through international brokers. Plaintiffs were informed by MPD that Illinois authorities had placed a hold on the title pending a court order. MPD also learned that the car is presently at a restoration business located in Essex, Massachusetts. TL and the Massachusetts business reached an agreement with MPD for the car to remain stored there.

¶ 9 Plaintiffs demanded that TL return the car. When TL did not return it, plaintiffs filed this action. The trial court granted TL’s motion to dismiss. This appeal follows.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 10 This case comes to us on a motion to dismiss a complaint. "A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint."

John Doe 1 v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee , 2007 WI 95, ¶ 12, 303 Wis.2d 34, 734 N.W.2d 827 (citation omitted). Upon a motion to dismiss, we accept as true all facts well-pleaded in the complaint and the reasonable inferences therefrom. Kaloti Enters. , Inc. , 283 Wis.2d 555, ¶ 11, 699 N.W.2d 205.

¶ 11 The outcome turns on the interpretation of WIS. STAT. § 893.35. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law we review independently. Roberts v. T.H.E. Ins. Co. , 2016 WI 20, ¶ 19, 367 Wis.2d 386, 879 N.W.2d 492. "[S]tatutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute." State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty. , 2004 WI 58, ¶ 45, 271 Wis.2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (citation and quotation marks omitted). "If the meaning of the statute is plain, we ordinarily stop the inquiry." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). "Statutory language is given its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially-defined words or phrases are given their technical or special definitional meaning." Id. "Statutory language is read where possible to give reasonable effect to every word, in order to avoid surplusage." Id. , ¶ 46. "If this process of analysis yields a plain, clear statutory meaning, then ... the statute is applied according to this ascertainment of its meaning." Id.

DISCUSSION

I. The relevant statutes are statutes of repose, and the discovery rule therefore does not apply.

¶ 12 We start out by noting a point on which the parties agree: that the relevant statutes are statutes of repose and therefore the point at which an action accrues under WIS. STAT. §§ 893.35 or 893.51 is not "delayed until the person bringing the action learns of the wrongful taking or detention." See Judicial Council Committee’s Note 1979, Sec. 893.35.

¶ 13 This case turns on the interpretation of statutory language about the point at which a cause of action for a wrongful detention accrues. Two statutes contain relevant language. First, WIS. STAT. § 893.35, concerning an action to recover personal property , sets a six-year limit on such actions and defines when the cause of action accrues. It states:

An action to recover personal property shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues or be barred. The cause of action accrues at the time the wrongful taking or conversion occurs, or the wrongful detention begins .

(Emphasis added.)

¶ 14 The Judicial Council Committee’s Note attached to this statute notes that the statute is "without change in substance" from a prior version but that it has "some expansion of language to make clear that accrual of the cause of action is not delayed until the person bringing the action learns of the wrongful taking or detention." See Judicial Council Committee’s Note 1979, WIS. STAT. § 893.35.

¶ 15 WISCONSIN STAT. § 893.51, which concerns "[a]n action to recover damages for the wrongful ... detention of personal property[,]" contains identical language:

[A]n action to recover damages for the wrongful taking, conversion or detention of personal property shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues or be barred. The cause of action accrues at the time the wrongful taking or conversion occurs, or the wrongful detention begins.

(Emphasis added.)

¶ 16 Our supreme court has stated that "the decision to close the courthouse doors on litigants with stale claims is a pure question of policy that is better left to the legislative branch[.]" Castellani v. Bailey , 218 Wis.2d 245, 254, 578 N.W.2d 166 (1998). In construing a statute that provided that a cause of action must be commenced within a specified time after the defendant’s action which allegedly led to injury, the court held that "the plain language of [the statute] is sufficient to support our conclusion." Id. at 252, 255, 578 N.W.2d 166. It nevertheless additionally cited the Judicial Council Committee’s Note appended to that statute and noted that it "clearly reveals the legislature’s consideration, and rejection, of discovery principles." Id. at 256, 578 N.W.2d 166.

¶ 17 Castellani made clear there is no application of the discovery rule where the legislature has expressly stated when the cause of action accrues. Id. at 254, 578 N.W.2d 166 (stating that "the legislature has already determined when the claim ‘accrues’ "). We therefore turn to the question of when the cause of action accrued.

II. Under the plain language of the statute, the cause of action for wrongful detention accrued at the time the alleged wrongful detention began.

¶ 18 The crux of the disagreement between the parties and the sole issue in this case is when the cause of action accrued. The answer to that question will determine whether the complaint is dismissed as time-barred.

¶ 19 The complaint alleged that the car was stolen by an unknown person in 2001 and that TL purchased the car in 2015. The complaint was filed February 2, 2017. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs demanded that TL return the car, TL did not, and that TL had wrongfully detained it. Because we are reviewing a motion to dismiss, we accept as true the allegations in the complaint.³

¶ 20 Plaintiffs argue that the statute of repose started to run at the time TL refused to return the car. They rely on Voight v. Aetna Casualty...