Legal Definitions - prisel en auter lieu

Prisel en auter lieu is a legal defense used in a specific type of lawsuit called a replevin action. A replevin action is when someone goes to court to get their personal property back because they believe it was wrongfully taken or is being wrongfully withheld by another party.

When a defendant raises the defense of prisel en auter lieu, they are essentially arguing that the property in question was not taken from, or is not being held in, the location stated by the plaintiff in the lawsuit. This plea challenges a factual detail about *where* the alleged wrongful taking or possession occurred, rather than denying that the defendant has the item. It can be used to argue that the court lacks proper jurisdiction or that the case has been filed in the wrong location (venue).

Here are some examples:

• Imagine a situation where a vintage car owner, Sarah, sues a mechanic, Tom, in State A. Sarah claims Tom wrongfully took her car from her garage in City X, State A, and is now refusing to return it. Tom might respond with a prisel en auter lieu plea, arguing that he actually picked up the car from Sarah's vacation home in City Y, State B, for repairs, not from her garage in City X, State A. Tom isn't necessarily denying he has the car, but he's disputing the location of the initial "taking" as alleged by Sarah, which could affect whether the court in State A is the proper place to hear the case.

• Consider an art collector, Maria, who sues a gallery owner, David, in County M, alleging that David wrongfully took a valuable sculpture from her private collection in County M. David could file a prisel en auter lieu defense, asserting that he purchased the sculpture from Maria at an art fair in County N (a different county) and that the alleged "taking" did not occur in County M as stated. This challenges the factual basis of the lawsuit regarding the location of the alleged wrongful act.

• Suppose a construction company, "BuildRight Inc.," sues a former employee, Alex, in District P, claiming Alex wrongfully removed a specialized piece of equipment from their job site in District P. Alex might use a prisel en auter lieu plea, stating that he actually found the equipment abandoned on a public road in District Q (a different district) and moved it to his own property for safekeeping, not that he took it from BuildRight Inc.'s job site in District P. This defense disputes the location of the alleged wrongful taking, suggesting the lawsuit's premise about the "taking place" is incorrect.