[Cite as In re 7242 Chapel Rd., Madison, OH 44057 , 2020-Ohio-5385.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO

IN RE: MEMORANDUM OPINION 7242 CHAPEL ROAD, MADISON, OH 44057 CASE NO. 2020-L-082

Civil Appeal from the Painesville Municipal Cour t, Case No. CVH 2000955.

Jud g ment: Appeal dismissed.

J. Jeffrey Holland , Holland and Muirden, 1343 Sharon-Copley Road, P.O. Box 345, Sharon Cente r , OH 44274 ( For Plaintiff-Appellee, Lake Count y Humane Societ y )

. Michela J. Huth , P.O. Box 17, Bolivar, OH 44612 (For Defendants-Appellants, A licia Orosz and Hope Orosz )

.

MATT LYNCH, J. {¶1} On July 7, 2020, appellants, Alicia Orosz and Hope Orosz, throu gh counsel, appealed from a June 17, 2020 entry of the Painesville Municipa l Court, in which the trial court ordered appellants to pay a deposit for several animals t hat were impounded, and if no deposit was paid, appellee had the authority to dispose o f the animals as it deemed appropriate. {¶2} On July 17, 2020, appellee, through its counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final appealable order. Appellee also filed a second motion to dismiss on October 6, 2020, alleging that the appeal be dismiss ed as moot since appellants did not pay the deposit, the animals were forfeited and have now been transferred to third parties. Appellants filed opposition to b oth motions.2 {¶3} Pursuant to R.C. 959.132(B), an officer may seize a companion a nimal if the officer has probable cause to believe the animal is the sub ject of cruelty and neglect. The officer must post a written notice of the seizure and advis e that a hearing will be held on the impoundment within 10 days. R.C. 959.132(C). At the he aring, the court will determine if the officer had probable cause to seize and impoun d the animal. R.C. 959.132(E)(1). If probable cause does not exist, the animal mu st be returned to the owner. R.C. 959.132(E)(2). If the court decides probable cause exists, the court will determine an amount of bond or cash for deposit, the case shall continue, and the owner must post a bond or cash deposit. R.C. 959.132(E)(3). The owne r may renew the bond or deposit by posting, not later than 10 days following the exp iration of the period for which the previous bond or deposit was posted. Lake Humane Society v. Schmiege , 11th Dist. Lake No. 2019-L-092, 2019-Ohio-5411, at ¶ 2. If no bond or depo sit is posted or expires and is not renewed, an impounding agency may determine the disp osition of the companion animal unless the court issues an order that specifie s otherwise. Id. {¶4} “A court has no duty to decide moot questions, i.e., those issu es that are purely academic or abstract.” Id. at ¶ 5. This court further stated in Schmiege , “[i]f an appellant cannot be granted effectual relief by a reviewing cou rt, the appeal will be

dismissed as moot.” Id

. {¶5} In the case at hand, on June 16, 2020, a police officer seized 34 animals comprised of cats and birds from appellants’ residence followin g the execution of a search warrant. A probable cause hearing was held the following day w ith appellants present. The trial court found probable cause existed to seize and impou nd the animals and ordered appellants to pay $10 for each animal per day until Jul y 16, 2020. The court3 further ordered appellants pay a deposit by the close of busine ss on June 22, 2020, and ordered appellants to renew the deposit by posting no later tha n 10 days following the expiration of the period for which the previous deposit was pos ted. Appellants never made the initial deposit, and the animals were subsequently transfer red or adopted out to third parties. {¶6} In appellee’s latter motion to dismiss, it asserts that because the animals cannot be returned to appellants, the instant appea l is moot. We agree. {¶7} In their response, appellants claim the case is not moot becaus e “if the animals are the only subject matter as claimed by [appellee], t he inability of a litigant to appeal these probable cause cases continues to evade review.” {¶8} Under R.C. 959.132(E)(2), if the trial court had determined tha t an officer lacked probable cause, the owner would be entitled to the immed iate return of the companion animal or the reasonable market value of the animal i f had died or been otherwise injured. We conclude this is the relief the General A ssembly contemplated if a court determined an officer lacked probable cause to seize the companion animal. We have no ability to grant such relief. {¶9} Here, appellants were obligated to post money for the care of t he animals. Regardless of their reasons, they did not do so. As a result, appellee, the impounding agency, was authorized to determine the disposition of the anim als. Those animals were subsequently transferred or adopted out to third parties. Thus, the impounding agency no longer has access to or control over those animals.4 {¶10} Appellee originally argued in a motion to dismiss that the unde rlying order is not a final, appealable order, we need not reach that issue. Because we can afford appellants no meaningful relief, we conclude the matter must be dismissed as moot. {¶11} Accordingly, appellee’s July 17, 2020 motion to dismiss is over ruled, and appellee’s October 6, 2020 motion to dismiss is granted. This appeal is hereby dismissed

as moot.

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.,

concur.