Case Title: Hegarty v. Addison County Humane Society

Citation: 176 Vt. 405, 2004 VT 33, 848 A.2d 1139

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-04-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
Hegarty v. Addison County Humane Society (2002-385); 176 Vt. 405;
848 A.2d 1139

2004 VT 33

[Filed 02-Apr-2004]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 2004 VT 33

                                No. 2002-385

  Suzanne and Elizabeth Hegarty	                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Addison Superior Court

  Addison County Humane Society	                 November Term, 2003

  Matthew I. Katz, J.

  Peter F. Langrock of Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, Middlebury, for
    Plaintiffs-Appellants.

  Jeff W. Lively, Stowe, for Defendant-Appellee.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Diane E. Zamos,
    Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for Amicus Curiae.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J. (Ret.)
            and Gibson, J. (Ret.),  Specially Assigned	

       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.   On suspicion of inadequate care, defendant
  Addison County Humane Society (ACHS) seized Suzanne and Elizabeth Hegarty's
  elderly mare, Paka.  The Hegartys sued ACHS in Addison Superior Court
  alleging claims for conversion and intentional infliction of emotional
  distress.  The superior court granted ACHS's motion for summary judgment
  and the Hegartys appealed.  Because ACHS followed the constitutionally
  sound procedures outlined in Vermont's animal cruelty statutes, we affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  After receiving complaints from neighbors, ACHS's humane
  officer Paul Meacham began to investigate Paka's health and the adequacy of
  her care.  On several occasions in late July 2000, Meacham went by the
  Hegartys' pasture to assess the horse's condition.  Seeing no apparent
  signs that Paka was receiving food or water, on August 16, 2000, Meacham
  contacted the Hegartys to discuss the issue.  Meacham conveyed his concerns
  about Paka's health to Suzanne Hegarty and suggested corrective actions. 
  Suzanne Hegarty responded that she adequately fed and provided for her
  horses and that they received veterinary care.  Meacham told Suzanne
  Hegarty that he would be sending a veterinarian to check Paka.  She advised
  Meacham not to return to her property.  

       ¶  3.  Later that day, Meacham called the ACHS veterinarian Dr. Hunt
  and asked him to go to the Hegartys' property and assess Paka's health. 
  The next day, Dr. Hunt sent ACHS a report stating that, in his opinion,
  Paka was in an emaciated condition and was either sick, had poor teeth, or
  was receiving an inadequate diet.  Meacham then contacted State's Attorney
  John Quinn to discuss the case and Paka's potential removal.  Attorney
  Quinn advised ACHS to move forward using the procedure outlined in
  Vermont's animal cruelty statutes.  

       ¶  4.  On August 18, 2000, Meacham went to the Hegartys' home and
  seized Paka.  The horse received immediate veterinary care and treatment
  while in ACHS's custody.  Attorney Quinn later advised ACHS to return Paka
  to the Hegartys.  Paka was returned on approximately August 30, 2000,
  twelve days after the horse was seized.   
   
       ¶  5.  That same day the Hegartys filed a complaint in Addison
  Superior Court alleging that ACHS unlawfully removed their "geriatric mare"
  and asserting claims for conversion and intentional infliction of emotional
  distress.  After initial discovery, ACHS moved for summary judgment on
  grounds that it was authorized to seize Paka pursuant to Vermont's animal
  cruelty statutes, 13 V.S.A. §§ 351-354.  The Hegartys opposed the motion,
  arguing that the material facts supported their conversion claim and that
  the pertinent portions of the animal cruelty statutes were unconstitutional
  under both the federal and state constitutions.

       ¶  6.  The trial court granted ACHS's summary judgment motion on
  grounds that because ACHS had "a good faith belief that the horse was in
  distress," the seizure was lawful.  The court also held that the Hegartys'
  property right in "twelve days' possession of an old, blind, sick horse"
  was de minimis and thus did not trigger due process protection.  The
  Hegartys appealed. (FN1)  

       ¶  7.  On appeal, the Hegartys contest the trial court's denial of
  their conversion claim on two grounds.  First, they assert that the trial
  court erred when it relied on Morgan v. Kroupa to characterize Paka as a
  pet and thus not subject to a conversion claim.  167 Vt. 99, 103-05,