## Facts

- After a court trial, Muggli Dental Studio obtained a money judgment against Dr. Ted Taylor.
- An execution issued against Taylor’s personal property, and the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department levied on the property on December 9, 1986.
- The deputy conducting the levy used a checklist to confirm that the listed items were present at Taylor’s office.
- The deputy told Taylor the items should be considered “tagged and seized” and instructed that they were not to be disposed of.
- The deputy did not physically remove the property from the premises at the time of the levy.
- In 1982, Citizens Lakeshore Bank had obtained and perfected a security interest in Taylor’s personal property by filing a financing statement.
- Before the December 1986 levy, Taylor’s father (Taylor Sr.) paid off Taylor’s debt to the bank, but Taylor Sr. did not take possession of the collateral.
- Taylor Sr. filed his own financing statement on January 2, 1987, claiming a security interest in the same property.
- In a post-judgment proceeding, Taylor argued (1) the sheriff’s levy was insufficient because the property was not removed and (2) the levy lien did not have priority over Taylor Sr.’s claimed security interest.
- The trial court rejected Taylor’s arguments, and Taylor appealed pro se from the post-judgment order.

## Issues

1. Whether the sheriff’s deputy effected a legally sufficient levy and “seizure” of personal property under Wis. Stat. § 815.19 where the deputy verified the property’s presence, asserted control, and prohibited disposal, but did not remove the property.
2. If the levy was sufficient, whether the lien created by the levy had priority over Taylor Sr.’s security interest where Taylor Sr. filed his financing statement after the levy and never took possession of the collateral.

## Decision

- The court held the levy was legally effective: a levy on personal property can be sufficient without physical removal when the officer has the property in view, exercises control over it, and communicates that it is seized and may not be disposed of.
- The court held the levy created a lien in favor of Muggli Dental Studio as of the December 9, 1986 seizure, and that lien had priority over Taylor Sr.’s later-perfected (January 2, 1987) security interest claim.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s post-judgment order.

## Legal Principles

- Under Wis. Stat. § 815.19, personal property is bound from the time it is seized.
- A levy on personal property is not valid unless the officer has the property in view and under the officer’s control.
- A levy’s effectiveness is not defeated solely because the officer does not remove the property from the premises.
- Whether a levy is legally effective to bind property is a mixed question of fact and law: appellate review accepts supported factual findings and independently determines the legal effect of those facts.
- A levy that binds property as of the time of seizure can create a lien that takes priority over a security interest perfected later by filing, especially where the later claimant did not perfect before the levy and did not possess the collateral.

## Conclusion

Muggli Dental Studio v. Taylor holds that the sheriff’s deputy’s on-site assertion of control—confirming the listed items were present and instructing that they were “tagged and seized” and not to be disposed of—constituted a sufficient seizure under Wis. Stat. § 815.19 even without removal, and that the resulting levy lien arose on the levy date and had priority over the debtor’s father’s later-filed security interest.


Muggli Dental Studio v. Taylor, 419 N.W.2d 322, 142 Wis. 2d 696 (1987)