Appendix 3 Lost and Found Dog Pleadings

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

Appendix 3 Lost and Found Dog Pleadings

A couple that owned a Terrier was out of state when their dog went missing. The wife was out of the country mourning lost relatives, and her husband was receiving medical care.

The couple had left their Terrier, who had a microchip, in the care of a responsible family member. Even so, the Terrier, who was allowed outside to relieve himself without his collar on, disappeared in 20-degree-below-zero weather; the caretaker was unable to find him.

Once notified that her dog was missing, the wife immediately returned to Minnesota and, together with friends and family, continued to search for her dog. Humane societies were called, and information about the dog, including the dog's photograph, was posted on three national registries.

Because English was the wife's second language, she did not realize that the microchip she had implanted in the dog was not automatically registered by her veterinarian with her address. While searching for his missing dog, the husband checked with the microchip company and learned that an inquiry had been made by a veterinary hospital; the couple followed the trail and learned that their dog had been adopted out three days before. The rescue group refused to provide the couple with any information about the adopter.

What followed was an exchange of letters between the wife and the rescue group. The wife's letters were compassionate and eloquent and explained in compelling detail the unique place this dog had in her family. She told the rescue group how her husband was in recovery from a disease process and how an important aspect of his recovery was his daily walk in the park with the dog. She explained how she picked the dog up from doggie daycare on her way home from work each day to spend time with him before she picked up her daughter. There was no doubt about the depth of her love or the couple's commitment to this dog.

The letters from the rescue group had a steely tone. They wrote the wife short letters with a shaming quality asserting that the dog would be dead if not for them. The rescue group demanded that she leave them alone. In this case, the rescue group acted in the capacity of animal control and the statutory hold period had expired.

Once a rescue group makes an adoption, it is a challenge to recover possession of the animal. The general rule is that if an animal has been properly held by animal control for the statutory hold period, animal control can pass good title to a rescue group that can in turn pass good title to another. Even so, there are times that good lawyering can be effective for the original owner in this predicament. For example, it can be argued that courts may exercise discretion on whether to order the disclosure of the entity or individual in possession of the dog. If a disclosure is mandated, the original owner would then have an opportunity to negotiate financial terms, if not access terms, with the new owner.

In the case of the missing Terrier, the rescue group hired an attorney who filed an answer with a general denial to the plaintiffs' pre-litigation discovery motion. Once in the courtroom, it was clear that the judge had read the motion and the original owners' affidavit. Attached to the affidavit were a Summons and Complaint that the plaintiffs were contemplating serving if a further legal action was necessary. The judge was intensely interested in getting the Terrier back to his original owners and immediately ordered the rescue group to disclose the name of the adopter. A week later, following negotiations, the Terrier was home.

The pleadings that follow may be challenging to understand unless you realize (1) they were written many years ago,¹ (2) they were strategically designed to motivate the judge to order the disclosure of the identity of the person in possession of the dog, (3) they were designed to motivate the rescue group to cooperate, (4) the summons and complaint attached to the affidavit do not represent pleadings sufficient for a summary judgment, and (5) information has been changed on the pleadings to conceal the names of the parties, the county of the action, and other pertinent details.. The summons and complaint were attachments to the affidavit but were not the action itself because in Minnesota, a discovery deposition may be permitted under Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil Procedure before an action is brought. It is repeated that the motion and affidavit appear before the summons and complaint in this appendix because they were only illustrative of the action that the original owners would commence. This is why the motion heading is at variance with the headings in the summons and complaint.

STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA

In Re the Matter of: Craig Swanson and Julie Swanson, Plaintiff,

and

Animal Finder, Inc., and Minnesota Animal Retrieval, and John and Jane Doe, Defendants.

DISTRICT COURT TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CIVIL COURT DIVISION

Court File No. 12345

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION²

You will please take notice that upon the attached Affidavit and upon all of the files, records, and proceedings herein and the Court being duly advised in the premises, Plaintiffs, by their attorney, Barbara J. Gislason, will move the above-named Court at the Anoka County Courthouse, in the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, on the 1st day of March, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. for an Order as follows:

1. Issuing an Order compelling Defendant Animal Finder, Inc. to disclose the current contact information, name, phone number, and address of John and Jane Doe, who have possession of Topper.
2. Determining that withholding information about John and Jane Doe is not permitted pursuant to the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. Permitting other just and equitable relief.

Said Motion will be based upon this Notice and the appended Affidavit of Craig Swanson and Julie Swanson, filed herewith, and upon all the pleadings, files, and records herein in the office of the Clerk of District Court, Anoka County, Minnesota.

All responsive pleadings shall be served and mailed to or filed with the Court Administrator no later than five (5) days prior to the scheduled hearing. The Court may, at its discretion, disregard any responsive pleadings served or filed with the Court Administrator less than five (5) days prior to such hearing in ruling on the Motion or matter in question.

Dated:__________

Barbara J. Gislason

Atty ID No. 124011

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Law Office of Barbara J. Gislason

7362 University Avenue NE

Suite 120

Fridley, MN 55432

Telephone: (763) 5729297

STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA

In Re the Matter of: Craig Swanson and Julie Swanson, Plaintiff,

and

John and Jane Doe Defendants.

DISTRICT COURT TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CIVIL COURT DIVISION

Court File No. 12345

AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFFS

Craig Swanson and Julie Swanson, being duly sworn upon oath, depose and say:

1. We are the owners of Topper, a five-year-old Terrier, who is like our family member. Many more details are set forth in Plaintiffs' Summons and Complaint, which are on file with this Court and incorporated by reference.
2. We seek the contact

...