810.02.Order directing return of property.
Ch. 810: Replevin · Last amended 1993 · Last verified July 15, 2026
Full Text of Section 810.02
Plain-English Summary
Getting property back before a replevin case is decided is not something a plaintiff can request on the strength of the complaint alone. Section 810.02 requires that any order directing return of property before final judgment come from a judge or other judicial officer, and only on the plaintiff’s affidavit -- made after the summons has issued -- or a verified complaint that lays out specific facts.
The affidavit or complaint has to make six showings: that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property, particularly described; that the defendant is wrongfully detaining it; the alleged cause of that detention, to the plaintiff’s best knowledge, information, and belief; that the property was not taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, or seized under execution or attachment against the plaintiff’s own property (or, if it was, that it is exempt from that seizure); the property’s value; and the property’s location, described specifically enough for the judge or judicial officer to find reason to believe the property is there, or in the possession of the defendant or someone acting on the defendant’s behalf, subject to the defendant, or in concert with the defendant.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can issue an order directing the return of replevin property?
Only a judge or other judicial officer, under Section 810.02.
What has to support a request for an order returning replevin property?
The plaintiff’s affidavit, made after the summons has issued, or a verified complaint that sets forth the specific factual allegations Section 810.02 requires.
Do I have to describe the property in detail in the affidavit?
Yes, the affidavit or verified complaint must particularly describe the property the plaintiff claims a right to possess.
What if the property was already seized for taxes or under another execution?
The affidavit or complaint must show the property was not taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, or seized under execution or attachment against the plaintiff’s property, or that if it was, it is exempt from that seizure.
How specific do I have to be about where the property is located?
Specific enough for the judge or judicial officer to determine there is reason to believe the property is at the described location, in the defendant’s possession, or in the possession of someone acting on the defendant’s behalf, subject to the defendant, or in concert with the defendant.
Amendment History
History: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 758 (1975); Stats. 1975 s. 810.02; 1977 c. 308; 1993 a. 486.