Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BCL-Equipment Leasing LLC v. Tom Spensley Trucking, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

May 18, 2016

BCL-EQUIPMENT LEASING LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
TOM SPENSLEY TRUCKING, INC. and TOM SPENSLEY, Defendants.

          ORDER

          JAMES D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE

         After reviewing the parties’ written and oral submissions on plaintiff BCL-Equipment Leasing LLC’s motion for return of property, Dkt. 13, the court finds that:

         1. Due notice has been given to defendants Tom Spensley Trucking, Inc. and Tom Spensley that the property described below (“Property”) is the subject of a motion for prejudgment possession.

         2. Plaintiff filed its verified complaint for money damages, replevin, and turnover on January 6, 2016, and its amended complaint on March 31, 2016 (collectively, the “Complaint”).

         3. Defendants were served with the Complaint initially on January 12, 2016, and an appearance was filed on behalf of all defendants on February 2, 2016.

         4. Plaintiff has established a superior right to possession of the Property and has also demonstrated a probability that it will ultimately prevail on the underlying claim to possession.

         5. Based on the affidavits of plaintiff’s employees and arguments of counsel at the hearing held before this court on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, plaintiff has made a preliminary showing that:

a. Plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the Property claimed and the Property has been described with sufficient particularity;
b. The Property is wrongfully detained by defendants;
c. Defendants have not made all monthly payments to plaintiff required under the Lease Agreement between the parties, as identified in the Complaint;
d. Defendants are in possession of the Property;
e. Defendants have detained the Property because they are unwilling to surrender it to plaintiff.
f. The Property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, nor has it been seized under any execution or attachment against plaintiff’s property, or, if so seized, it is exempt from seizure;
g. According to the information provided at the hearing held on May 10, 2016, the Property is worth approximately $350, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.