810.11.Claims of 3rd parties; indemnity to officer.
Ch. 810: Replevin · Last amended 2005 · Last verified July 15, 2026
Full Text of Section 810.11
Plain-English Summary
Replevin does not only involve a plaintiff and a defendant. Sometimes a third person claims that the seized property belongs to them. Section 810.11 gives that third person a path into the case: they may apply, under the same procedure sections 810.02 and 810.03 set out for the original replevin order and requisition, for an order directing that the property be delivered to them instead.
The section then protects whoever currently has possession of the property — which could be the sheriff, the plaintiff, or the defendant, depending on where the case stands. That person is not stuck handing the property to anyone who claims it. They may move the court to vacate or modify the order favoring the third-party claimant, or they may post a bond in the same manner the chapter provides for a defendant, keeping the property while the ownership dispute plays out.
This gives the section its title: it addresses both the third party’s claim and the indemnity concern for the officer caught in the middle, who might otherwise face liability for delivering property to the wrong person.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can someone who is not the plaintiff or defendant claim seized replevin property?
Yes. Section 810.11 lets a third person apply to a judge or judicial officer, under sections 810.02 and 810.03, for an order directing delivery of the property to them.
Can the person currently holding the property fight a third-party claim?
Yes. They may move the court to vacate or modify the order directing delivery to the third-party claimant.
Can the current possessor keep the property instead of handing it over to the third-party claimant?
Yes, by posting a bond in the same manner the chapter provides for a defendant.
What procedure governs the third party’s application for delivery?
The same procedure used for the original order and requisition under sections 810.02 and 810.03.
Why is indemnity to officer part of this section’s subject?
Because the sheriff or other officer holding the property could face liability for delivering it to the wrong claimant, and the section’s dispute procedure — order, vacatur, or bond — works out competing claims before that happens.
Amendment History
History: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 758 (1975); Stats. 1975 s. 810.11; 1977 c. 308; 2005 a. 253.