Pinnacle Bank's replevin case against defaulting construction project borrower dismissed because creditor could not identify segregated funds from the banks loan check, per Nebraska Supreme Court J. Connolly Pinnacle Bank v. Darland Constr. Co., 270 Neb. 978 January 27, 2006. No. S-04-1062. courts from other jurisdictions unanimously agree that unless money is marked or otherwise labeled for identification, it is not subject to replevin because it is not specifically identifiable.

Pinnacle consistently sought a writ of replevin, stood on its pleading, and proceeded to trial solely on a theory of replevin. But the money consisted of a check that was cashed. Thus, the funds are--or were--either held as cash or in Watkins' bank account. The specific funds were not marked or set aside in a manner that would allow them to be specifically identified. Therefore, the funds were not subject to an action for replevin. Accordingly, the county court should have dismissed Pinnacle's complaint as requested by Watkins in its answer.