Appendix 11 Order Denying Replevin

• Library: Pet Law & Custody: Establishing a Worthy & Equitable Jurisprudence for the Evolving Family (ABA) (2017 Ed.)

Appendix 11 Order Denying Replevin

Looking at a replevin action from several different angles can be helpful. Below is an example of a well-crafted and groundbreaking public Order Denying Replevin from a judge in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The order is reflective of how courts can utilize both traditional ideas about animal ownership and newer ideas about the best interests of both humans and animals. It is probable that Judge Chu's order will be typical of orders to come. Here are some of the highlights from the court's findings of fact:

• The parties intended to jointly adopt the rescue dog.
• The plaintiff paid a very small purchase price.
• The defendant spent a significant amount on veterinary expenses.
• The defendant had possession of the dog for the past two years.
• The defendant lives in a desirable location near a dog park.
• The plaintiff has a large yard.
• The plaintiff is unwilling to share possession of the dog.
• The plaintiff is subject to a harassment order involving the defendant.
• The plaintiff initiated a replevin action following an unfavorable result in a separate civil proceeding.

Based upon these factors, the court considered the plaintiff's initial expenditures for the dog of $26.63 and that he later paid veterinary bills totaling $226.06. In comparison, the defendant paid more than $2,733.04 for veterinary fees. In exercising her discretion, Judge Chu's decision was impacted by the following:

• Traditional jurisprudence is that animals are personal property.
• Animal protection laws address the subjects of torture, neglect, cages, abandonment, transport, seasonal health requirements, and prohibition on poisoning, dog fighting, and regulation of housing based upon climate regulations that distinguish nonliving animals from nonliving chattel. Laws permit felony prosecutions.
• Cases that inspired or impressed Judge Chu included Rabideau v. City of Racine,¹ Bueckner v. Hamel,² State of Ohio v. Anderson,³ and Fitzgerald v. State.⁴

Judge Chu offered her analysis on the subjects of animal domestication, philosophy, and science. More specifically, she stated the following:

• Dogs became domesticated in 6300 bc.
• Deceased humans have been buried with their dogs for 12,000 years.
• Dogs provide work, including in law enforcement and friendship.
• Cartesian views, referring to philosopher Rene Descartes, are out of date.
• Societal views about companion animals have changed.
• Animals are sentient and emotive beings.
• Animals provide companionship to the humans with whom they live.
• Taking into account a dog's best interest is consistent with turning tides.
• Human participants have worthy interests, too.

Judge Chu also described the ownership dispute with the dog to be a "custody" issue and explained that legislature recognizes dogs as living beings that deserve basic legal protections. With regard to the human participants, Judge Chu considered their emotional connections to the dog, as well as their financial investment in the enjoyment of a relationship with the dog.

The four factors the court utilized as decision-making criteria were (1) which party selected the dog for adoption and paid the initial adoption fee, (2) the extent to which each party provided care and love for the dog, (3) the extent to which each party provided financial support for the dog, and (4) which result is in the dog's best interest. Utilizing all of these factors, Judge Chu awarded the dog to the defendant even though it was the plaintiff who paid the dog's nominal purchase price.

STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN

DISTRICT COURT...