[Cite as Saini v. Golden, 2017-Ohio-204.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

NOLAN R. SAINI : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

KYLEE N. GOLDEN : Case No. 2016CA00121 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellee : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Canton Municipal 

 Court, Case No. 2015-CVF-4142 

JUDGMENT: Reversed & Judgment Entered 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 17, 2017 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee 

NOLAN SAINI, Pro Se DANAMARIE K. PANNELLA 

2802 Sunflower Loop South 1343 Sharon Copley Road 

Palm Springs, CA 92262 P.O. Box 345 

 Sharon Center, OH 44274 
Stark County Case No. 2016CA00121 2 

Farmer, P.J. 

{¶1} On July 2, 2015, appellant, Nolan Saini, filed a complaint in replevin against 

appellee, Kylee Golden, in the Court of Common Pleas for Stark County, Ohio. By 

judgment entry filed August 17, 2015, the case was transferred to the Canton Municipal 

Court, whereupon appellant filed an amended complaint in replevin on August 27, 2015. 

In the amended complaint, appellant alleged he purchased a dog ("Titan") from the 

Department of Summit County Animal Control on October 25, 2013, and he was the sole 

owner of the dog. Titan was registered to appellant in the state of Ohio and was 

microchipped and registered to appellant in the state of California. Titan was now living 

in North Canton, Ohio, with appellee. Appellant alleged the dog was abducted by 

appellee without legal permission or privilege. Appellant sought return of the dog and 

damages. 

{¶2} On December 8, 2015, appellee filed an answer and counterclaim, alleging 

appellant gifted Titan to appellee as an anniversary present, and she was the sole owner 

of the dog. She and appellant had a personal relationship and she left the home they 

shared in California in January 2015. She removed all of her personal property including 

the dog. Appellee sought dismissal of the complaint and damages. 

{¶3} A bench trial commenced on May 12, 2016. By judgment entry filed May 

13, 2016, the trial court found in favor of appellant as being the owner of the dog, and 

ordered appellee to return the dog to appellant or pay appellant $90.00 for the fair market 

value of the dog. 

{¶4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for 

consideration. Assignment of error is as follows: 
Stark County Case No. 2016CA00121 3 

I 

{¶5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY RULING IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR ON HIS 

COMPLAINT IN REPLEVIN BUT FAILING TO ORDER THE RETURN OF PLAINTIFF'S 

PROPERTY. THIS IS REFLECTED IN THE JUDGMENT ENTRY FROM 5-13-16." 

I 

{¶6} Appellant claims the trial court erred in awarding damages i.e., value of the 

dog, as an alternative to the return of the dog. We agree. 

{¶7} On August 27, 2015, appellant filed an amended complaint in replevin 

pursuant to R.C. 2737.03 which provides: "Any party to an action involving a claim for the 

recovery of specific personal property, upon or at any time after commencement of the 

action, may apply to the court by written motion for an order of possession of the property." 

Appellant prayed for the following relief: 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in 

the amount of $15,000 dollars for the proximate and foreseeable loss of 

Plaintiff's pet dog and the Defendant's conversion of said property. 

Damages for time and money properly expended in pursuit of the converted 

property. For punitive and exemplary damages. For the cost of this action 

herein incurred. For the imminent and immediate return of Plaintiff's pet 

dog "Titan." For any such other and further relief as this Court deems just 

and proper. 
Stark County Case No. 2016CA00121 4 

{¶8} The gravamen of this appeal is whether appellant is entitled solely to the 

return of the dog. In its judgment entry filed June 10, 2016, the trial court stated appellant 

"prayed for relief for replevin and/or for damages for the loss of the dog," and found the 

following: 

Further the Court finds that it has the inherent authority to issue a 

remedy appropriate for the circumstances. The Court found that the 

appropriate remedy was for the Defendant to make Plaintiff whole, either by 

return of the dog at issue or payment of the fair market value. The Court 

further found that based on the pleadings and the evidence presented at 

trial, the fair market value of the dog is $90.00. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

That judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant; 

and 

That Plaintiff is found to be the owner of the property at issue: to wit 

a dog identified as "Titan": and 

That Defendant took possession and care of the dog against the 

ownership interest of the Plaintiff constituting conversion; and 

That Defendant is ordered to return the dog or pay the fair market 

value of the dog within ten days of this judgment entry, which fair market 

value is determined to be $90.00; and 

That should Defendant chose to make payment, payment may be 

made through the Clerk of Courts for the fair market value of $90.00. 
Stark County Case No. 2016CA00121 5 

{¶9} In all respects, the trial court's decision finds for appellant, except it provided 

for alternative relief. From our review of the prayer for relief and the trial court's decision, 

we find the trial court stopped outside the requested prayer for relief. At the conclusion 

of the trial, the trial court explained the following (T. at 11-12): 

Both of you indicated a love for that dog. Hhhmmm. I'm not sure I 

can joint - - I guess I could rule for joint property. I'm not sure how to handle 

that any differently than ruling for you, Mr. Saini, so what I'm going to do is 

I'm going to rule in your favor. But I'm going to fashion a remedy that you 

don't like. And that remedy is going to be I'm going to give the defendant 

the choice of returning the property or paying the fair market value of that 

property. She has ten days within which to pay you ninety dollars for the 

fair market value of that property and the cost of this action. I don't know 

any other way to do it. From what I've seen today, she's certainly taken 

care of that dog, she certainly evidence to ownership of that dog, and from 

what I've seen from the relationship with that dog, um, there would be as 

much harm from transferring the dog now, you know. The appellate court 

needs to know what I'm thinking when I fashion this remedy, so while I'm 

not persuaded by a best interest test, you need to understand why I'm 

exercising the discretion I am in my - - in this way. That I do look at Alpha. 

I do look at how dogs behave. I do look at how dogs connect. The evidence 

that was presented to me indicates there's a strong connection. And I don't 
Stark County Case No. 2016CA00121 6 

see why I should exercise my discretion if the defendant is not willing, if 

you're made whole, exercise my discretion to upset that balance. 

{¶10} We find the trial court's decision to be in error. Appellant requested "the 

imminent and immediate return" of the dog and damages associated with the return. 

{¶11} Pursuant to App.R. 27, we reverse the trial court's decision and order 

appellee to return the dog to appellant within thirty days of the date of this opinion and 

accompanying judgment entry. 

{¶12} The sole assignment of error is granted. 

{¶13} The judgment of the Canton Municipal Court of Stark County, Ohio is hereby 

reversed. 

By Farmer, P.J. 

Wise, J. and 

Baldwin, J. concur. 

 

 

SGF/sg 105