The Need To Revisit A Replevin Action For Your Pets
We recently received another inquiry regarding the use of a replevin action for a pet.
A writ of replevin is a prejudgment process ordering the seizure or attachment of an alleged illegal taking or wrongfully withheld property, goods or chattle (any kind of personal property).
The action of replevin dates all the way back to the common laws of old England and was first used in the thirteenth century. This type of writ is commonly used to take property from an individual wrongfully in possession of that specific property and return it to its rightful owner.
We have discussed on many occasions the evolution of the status of pets and companion animals. They originally were clearly identified as the “personal property” of their owners in the eyes of the Court. But now, in most circumstances, they have been elevated to a higher position.
In many situations, the attorney for the owners have determined that it is necessary to file an action to demand the return of “personal property” if a pet has been wrongfully taken or detained.
There may be no other legal remedy available.
Reader Needs Help To Replevin Her Dog...
Any attorneys in Maryland that want to reach out to help this pet owner that sent me this message?
"I am having trouble finding the help and answers to my problem. I have talked to several local lawyers to no avail. I am wanting to seek custody back of a puppy. I sold the puppy to a "friend"/coworker. I wrote up a contract with specifics on payment plan and the puppy starting shots, etc. One month later, no record of shots were received by me, and repeatedly asked new owner for said records. I did file a writ of replevin, and had new owner served by sheriff. Before the hearing, me and new owner made arrangements to start shots, etc.
Needless to say, I let my guard down and trusted that follow-up boosters and rabies were to be completed. I did withdrawal case as I truly thought new owner would be compliant. Well, these were not done and I again contacted new owner. I am not happy with their excuses and no proof of shots for puppy. I did however, contact last place of original shot, and received a record of said puppy starting these shots again. To date, I have not received copy of booster shot or rabies shot for puppy. I did send a certified letter to person notifying them of my intentions to seek custody again.
The courts here really have no idea how to handle a case like this, I am at my wit's end here, this puppy's health and life can be at risk here. I have talked to a few lawyers here about breach of contract, etc, and I am getting nowhere. It is getting really frustrating and each day that goes by, this puppy is at risk.
If you have any advice or need more info, please contact me. There is a little more to story, but trying to keep it short."
Contact me for the name and number if you are interested….
Florida Court Changing Attitude Toward Pets?
We have discussed on many occasions the evolution of the status of pets and companion animals.
They originally were clearly identified as the “personal property” of their owners in the eyes of the Court.
We discussed here that a Naples,Florida couple filed a legal action against their veterinarian for a “writ of replevin” for the return of their dog.
A writ of replevin is a prejudgment process ordering the seizure or attachment of an alleged illegal taking or wrongfully withheld property, goods or chattel (any kind of personal property).
The action of replevin dates all the way back to the common laws of old England and was first used in the thirteenth century. This type of writ is commonly used to take property from an individual wrongfully in possession of that specific property and return it to its rightful owner.
Well, recently a Florida court has provided an expansion of actions for pet owners. (Loli v. Mitvalski)
A Tampa court has held that although the Courts have historically held that pets are mere chattel or personal property, there may be exceptions.
In this case, the owner of a dog incurred over $4,000.00 in vet bills when her dog was attacked by another dog. The Trial Court awarded her the damages for the payment of the bills and the defendant argued that the amount of the award was excessive, as the total value of the injured dog was only $1,200.00.
The Appellate Court agreed with the lower court, upheld the judgment amount and wrote:
"However, as Appellee makes abundantly clear, we are not just talking about a car, a piece of land, or a database. Here, the subject "property" is a pet dog. (We acknowledge that it is not a seeing-eye dog or other specially useful dog). None of the case law submitted takes the instant facts into account. Given the emotional attachment that humans have with their pets, many feel that pets should not be viewed strictly as "chattel," and emerging case law supports a reevaluation of the traditional view...
We do not feel our decision here will open the floodgates of lawsuits seeking excessive damages for injured dogs..."
The legal world of pet owners is changing.
Even in old Florida.
