Title: Lamare v. North Country Animal League

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Lamare v. North Country Animal League  (98-258); 170 Vt. 115; 743 A.2d 598

[Filed 12-Nov-1999]

       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.

                                 No. 98-258

Chasidy Lamare and Charles Arnold 	Supreme Court
	                                On Appeal from
     v.		                        Lamoille Superior Court

North Country Animal League,	        March Term, 1999
Darcie Fitzgerald, and John and
Jane Doe

Alan W. Cook, J.

Clarke D. Atwell, Law Office of Robert A. Gensburg, St. Johnsbury, for
  Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Jeff W. Lively of Olson & Associates, Stowe, for Defendants-Appellees.

Beth Robinson of Langrock Sperry & Wool, Middlebury, and Roger A.
  Kindler and Paul J. Tanis, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae The Humane
  Society of the  United States, et al.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       MORSE, J.   Plaintiffs Chasidy Lamare and Charles Arnold appeal a
  summary judgment  of the Lamoille Superior Court in favor of defendants
  North Country Animal League, Darcie  Fitzgerald, and John and Jane Doe. 
  Plaintiffs raise numerous claims challenging the court's  ruling that their
  possessory interest in a lost dog had been transferred to defendants under
  the  Town of Wolcott's dog control ordinance.   We affirm. 

       The following facts are undisputed.  Plaintiffs were the co-owners of
  a five and one-half  year old female German Shepard named Billy.  They
  acquired the dog as a puppy and registered  it with the American Kennel
  Club.  On June 3, 1997, Billy and her five-month-old puppy broke 

 

  free from their tether at plaintiffs' residence in Wolcott.  Although
  licensed with the Town of  Wolcott, Billy was not wearing her license tags
  at the time of her escape.  The puppy returned  several hours later.  When
  Billy failed to return, plaintiffs contacted their neighbors, friends, and 
  family with the hope that she had gone to someone's home.  During the next
  month, plaintiffs  continued to search for Billy when they had time, but
  her continued absence caused them to  speculate that she had been injured,
  killed, or stolen.

       In fact, Billy was found several hours after her escape, running on
  the road, by a couple  who brought her to Lamoille Kennel.  An employee of
  Lamoille Kennel notified Gilbert Goff,  the Wolcott animal control officer. 
  Goff assumed control and custody of the dog under the  Wolcott dog control
  ordinance.  

       As required by the ordinance, Goff placed notices describing the dog
  in the village store,  post office, and town clerk's office.  After holding
  Billy for nine days from the date of  impoundment without any response to
  the notices, Goff transferred Billy into the care and  custody of defendant
  North Country Animal League, where Billy remained for approximately  three
  weeks.

       On Sunday, July 6, plaintiff Arnold's mother contacted Goff, who told
  her that he had  placed a dog in the League's custody.  Plaintiffs called
  the League that day and left a message on  the answering machine concerning
  their lost dog.  On Monday, July 7, plaintiffs again contacted  the League
  and were told that it still had the dog in its possession.  Plaintiffs
  arrived at the  League shortly thereafter and identified the dog.  They
  asked that the dog be returned, provided  American Kennel Club papers to
  prove ownership, and offered to pay all boarding costs.  A  League
  employee, defendant Darcy Fitzgerald, told them that the dog belonged to
  the 

 

  League and that the only way to gain possession was to fill out an adoption
  application.   Plaintiffs immediately completed the application, but were
  told that their personal references had  to be contacted.  Two days later,
  plaintiffs called the League to inquire about the status of their  adoption
  application.  A League employee informed plaintiffs that their application
  had been  denied.  When plaintiffs questioned the reason for the denial,
  they were told that it was not in the  dog's best interests to be returned
  to them.  Plaintiffs later learned that, in fact, the League had  approved
  "Jane and John Doe's" adoption of Billy on July 5, prior to plaintiffs'
  application.   Billy was spayed on July 8 and adopted by the Doe family
  that same day.  None of the  references listed in plaintiffs' application
  was ever contacted.    

       Plaintiffs then filed this action to recover their dog from the Does
  and for damages from  the League for violation of their due process rights
  guaranteed by the United States Constitution.  When defendants refused to
  disclose the identity of the Does through interrogatories, plaintiffs 
  moved to compel disclosure.  Defendants, in response, moved for a
  protective order to protect  the Does' identity.  After a hearing, the
  court denied plaintiffs' motion to compel.  

       The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The
  court granted  defendants' motion and denied plaintiffs', concluding that
  under Morgan v. Kroupa, 167 Vt. 99,  104,