In Fagen v. Carnow Acceptance Co., 2013 WL 6283653 (Wis.App. 2013), the Wisconsin Court of Appeal held:

Fagen argued that the court failed to determine at trial whether Carnow Acceptance violated WIS. STAT. § 425.206(2)(a) by committing a breach of the peace. See WIS. STAT. § 425.206(2)(a) and (3). Carnow Acceptance stipulated at the hearing that a breach of peace occurred, however, it took the position that the breach of peace occurred after repossession had taken place. According to Carnow Acceptance, the vehicle had been repossessed and moved to a different location a short distance from Fagen’s apartment when Fagen arrived and objected to the repossession. Fagen did not dispute that the vehicle had been removed from in front of his apartment and transported to a different location when he objected to the repossession. The court ultimately agreed with Carnow Acceptance, finding that repossession occurred when the vehicle was removed from in front of Fagen’s residence and that any breach of peace occurred after the repossession.  ¶  ¶ 6 On appeal, Fagen argues that repossession did not occur when the vehicle was removed from his property because the individual who repossessed the vehicle did not properly secure the vehicle to the tow truck. Fagen does not cite this court to any legal authority in support of this argument. This court need not address arguments unsupported by legal authority. State v. Pettit, 171 Wis.2d 627, 646, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct.App.1992). I also read Fagen’s brief as arguing that a breach of peace could occur if there was an objection to the repossession “in the immediate vicinity” of where the repossession occurred. Assuming, without deciding, that Fagen is correct, Fagen does not show that the court’s finding that repossession had already occurred when Fagen objected to the repossession was clearly erroneous. . . Accordingly, I reject Fagen’s argument.