A
Lines from Linda: Whose Leash is it Anyway
BY LINDA AYERS TURNER KNORR
ties and the less ties to each other the parties have the better they can move on. Jessica Fox, Comment: The Use of Agreements in the Resolution of Pet Custody Disputes, 85 UMKC L. Rev. 455, 467 (2017). In some instances, visi- tation provisions have been sufficient, such as in Assal v. Barwick, where a husband was given “a 30-day visitation period during each summer.” Rebecca J. Huss, Article: Separation, Custody, and Estate Planning Issues Related to Companion Animals, 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 181, 224 (2003). PET CUSTODY AFTER ANIMAL CONTROL AND MISSING PETS Pets can be removed from the own- er’s home in circumstances where the dog may be dangerous, a nuisance, in violation of zoning rules, or being kept in unsanitary conditions. Rebecca J. Huss, Article: Separation, Custody, and Estate Planning Issues Related to Companion Animals, 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 181, 208-211 (2003). Pets can be removed by police or animal control and this is generally thought to be part of the state’s police power. Id at 211. However, when pets are lost or run away and are found by someone other than the owner, generally the state stat- utes regarding lost property apply. While most jurisdictions utilize lost property statutes when determining ownership of animals that have been lost and found by someone else, Ver- mont disqualifies the use of a traditional property analysis in favor of an analy- sis more forgiving of emotional bonds humans make with animals and pro- moting public policy of taking in stray animals. In Morgan, the defendant’s dog broke free from his collar, ran away, and became lost in July 1994. Morgan v. Kroupa, 167 Vt. 99 (Vt. September 5, 1997). Two weeks later, plaintiff found the dog, took it in her home and cared for the dog. Morgan, 167 Vt. at 100. Plaintiff notified the Addison County Human Society of the dog’s description, posted notices of finding the dog. Id. The defendant became aware in Sep- tember 1995 of the plaintiff’s posses- sion of the dog and arrived at plaintiff’s house to regain possession of the dog. Id. Defendant’s attempts of negotiat- ing with the plaintiff were unsuccess- ful, but as he was getting in his truck, the dog jumped in the back and both of them drove off. Id at 100-101. Plain- tiff brought an action of replevin to regain possession of the dog. Id. The trial court followed Vermont’s lost
Hall’s smile reflects her love for animals!
property statute and awarded posses- sion to the plaintiff. Id. The Supreme Court of Vermont found that a tradi- tional property analysis when dealing with a dog is inappropriate because “pets generally do not fit neatly within traditional property law principles.” Id at 102-103. This court found that it was appropriate to have public policy that supports citizens that take in and take care of dogs they find wandering the streets while taking reasonable steps to find their previous owners and awarded possession to the plaintiff. Id at 103-104. However, when an ownership dis- pute occurs between a private party and a public entity, state statutes and local ordinance apply. In Lamare, plain- tiff’s dogs Billy and a five-month-old puppy escaped on June 3, 1997. Lamare v. North Country Animal League, 170 Vt. 115. A few hours later, the Billy’s puppy returned, but without Billy. Lamare, 170 Vt. at 116. For the next month, plaintiffs searched for Billy, but eventually lost hope. Id. However, Billy was found several hours after escaping and ended up in the hands of an animal control officer. Id at 117. On June 7, the
plaintiffs located the dog at Northern County Animal League, identified the dog and filled out an adoption applica- tion after being told that it was the only way they could regain possession of the dog. Id . The plaintiff’s application was rejected because “it was not in the dog’s best interest to be returned to them.” Id. However, the plaintiffs found out that the League had approved an appli- cation for Billy to be adopted by anoth- er family on July 5th. Id . Plaintiffs then filed this action to recover their dog from the anonymous party that adopted her and to receive damages from the League for violating their due process rights. Id. The court distinguished this case from Morgan because it involves a public entity and is controlled by state statutes and local ordinances, while Morgan only involved a dispute between private parties. Id at 118. The court found that the animal control offi- cer followed the local statute properly, the plaintiff’s interest in the matter is qualified because dogs are subject to regulations and police power, the plain- tiff’s due process rights were not vio- lated and emphasized the public policy
continued on page 130
128 • S how S ight M agazine , J uly 2018
Powered by FlippingBook