Executive Letter: Judicial Advocacy Win in Recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals Decision
By Rose Oswald Poels
I am pleased to share a significant judicial victory for the industry in a recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision released on September 18, 2025. The case clarified the relationship between two important statutory frameworks: Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA).
As discussed in prior issues of the Executive Letter, WBA typically refrains from engaging in litigation until a case reaches the appellate level. At that point, and in accordance with WBA policy, the WBA Board of Directors may authorize the filing of an amicus curie brief if the case presents an issue of broad industry impact and our participation is likely to be persuasive.
In this case, a credit union was fighting a claim that it violated the UCC because it did not incorporate a requirement under the WCA into UCC-required notices. At the time the Court of Appeals was to hear the case, WBA members were fighting similar challenges. The credit union case was the first to advance to appellate level. WBA joined the Wisconsin Credit Union League in the filing of the amicus curie brief to present a united industry front in the matter.
The case involved consumers who had defaulted on their car loan and the credit union had repossessed the vehicle as a result. The credit union sent the consumers a notice of sale to advise them that it had the vehicle and was going to sell it at a private sale. The notice also stated, “The money that we get from the sale (after paying our costs) will reduce the amount you owe. If we get less money than you owe, you will still owe us the difference…If we get more money than you owe, you will get the extra money, unless we must pay it to someone else.” The credit union’s pre-sale notice used language from Wis. Stat. § 409.614(3) which is safe-harbor language under the UCC. The consumers argued that the pre-sale notice was deficient because the notice used the vehicle’s sale price not the fair market value of the vehicle. Fair market value is a requirement under a different notice under the WCA, Wis. Stat. § 425.210.
The UCC also requires a post-sale notice be provided, Wis. Stat. § 409.616. In its post-sale notice, the credit union used the actual sale price for its calculation of deficiency. Again, the consumers claimed the calculation should have been based on the fair market value, importing requirements from § 425.210.
The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments, holding that § 425.210 does not alter the notice requirements under the UCC and that the credit union’s notices were legally sufficient. The statutory language of the UCC and WCA were not conflicting. This is an important win for the industry, affirming that creditors may rely on the UCC’s safe-harbor provisions without importing requirements from the WCA. Importantly, the decision helps prevent a trend seen in other states, where courts have expanded provisions of a consumer act not through legislation, but through judicial interpretation.
The plaintiffs have until mid-October to petition the Wisconsin Supreme Court for review. While I believe it unlikely that the Court will accept the appeal, WBA will continue to monitor the situation.
I wish to extend a sincere thanks to Husch Blackwell for their work in drafting the amicus brief. WBA is currently involved as amici in three other cases on behalf of our membership, continuing our commitment to judicial advocacy and industry protection.
Click here to view the Court of Appeals decision.
Husch Blackwell is a WBA Associate Member.
