Skip to main content

Daniel Birge v. Simplicity Credit Union

WISCTAPPSeptember 18, 2025No. 2024AP000567
Defendant WinSimplicity Credit Union
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court affirmed summary judgment for Simplicity Credit Union, holding that the pre-sale and post-sale notices regarding vehicle repossession and deficiency calculation were legally sufficient under the UCC and that the Wisconsin Consumer Act did not impose additional notice requirements.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.