Source: https://www.animallaw.info/article/lost-and-found-humane-societies-rights-and-obligations-regarding-companion-animal-ownership
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:14:50+00:00

Document:
This article discusses when ownership of a dog that is lost or relinquished by its owner transfers to an animal shelter. The shelter's property rights in a found animal vary depending on whether the animal is licensed or unlicensed, stray or abandoned. Each state has its own rules regarding how long a shelter must keep an animal before transferring ownership to a third party.
This paper will address the issues concerning lost and found companion animals, particularly issues of ownership and title rights. First, the paper will examine the current state of animals in the law today, and will give a brief explanation of how animals and their owners are treated in the courts today. The legal rights of companion animals and their owners are increasing; for example, people can now provide for their animals in their wills, and can bring suits for the wrongful death of a companion animal. This current state of the law shows the progression of animals from being seen merely as property to being seen as a part of the family unit that needs protection by the law. Because of the increasingly important status of companion animals today, shelters and individuals who find animals need to be well aware of their own rights and the rights of the owner regarding that animal. This paper will address when and how the original owner’s property rights are relinquished, and when an animal becomes the property of an animal shelter.
Note: The law treats animal shelters the same whether they are publicly or privately operated. Although private shelters may have different policies from public pounds, such as no-kill policies or longer holding periods, public and private animal shelters are the same in the eyes of the law. For ease of reference, in this paper the terms “humane society” and “animal shelter” are used interchangeably.
In recent years, courts and the legislature have come to recognize the importance of companion animals to their families, and have also begun to recognize that companion animals deserve more protection than traditional property law affords them. If a companion animal is wrongfully killed, the owner can usually collect compensation for the cost of the animal.  However, this is often inadequate because the compensation is determined based on the animal’s market value. Although purebred animals have a determinable worth, mixed breeds (mutts) do not, and so traditionally no compensation was required.  Awarding damages for wrongful death of a pet based on the animal’s market value has been seen to be increasingly inadequate to compensate the owner.
An owner can also abandon an animal by leaving it in a public place, thus showing the owner’s refusal to care for it. If an animal is left in public for a certain period of time determined by statute, the owner can be charged with a misdemeanor.  If an owner attempts to reclaim an animal who has been abandoned by being left in a public place, the owner is liable for any costs incurred by the local authorities in dealing with the animal.  For example, if the animal found in a public place is brought to a veterinarian to be treated for injuries, and the owner wants the animal back, the owner is liable for the costs of treating the animal.  Authorities who find animals in public places take possession, but not full title, of that animal.  Possession of the animal entails giving necessary care and treatment to the animal until the animal is deemed suitable to be returned to its owner.  For example, if the animal is found injured, the local authority may require that animal to be treated before returning it to its owner. The owner is then liable for any costs incurred.  If the owner cannot be found, or does not want the animal, the animal is turned over to the local animal shelter. Finally, an animal found in a public place without tags or other indication of being licensed is considered abandoned, and will be immediately turned over to an animal shelter upon being found.
States require such efforts as a matter of policy; it is in the animal’s interest to be returned to a home where it receives love and care, so owners should have a reasonable opportunity to reclaim a lost animal. On the other hand, animals that do not have caring owners are best served if the state gains title after the owner has had sufficient opportunity to claim the animal. The shelter can then makes a decision in the animal’s best interest as to what should be done with the animal. The function of state laws governing found animals protects both the animal and the owner; shelters should consider both interests in determining their own policies in compliance with state law.
Humane societies do not gain title immediately to an animal that is unlicensed.  Shelters must still hold an unlicensed animal for a minimum amount of time, and must make reasonable efforts to find the owner. Due to the overwhelming number of animals in a shelter, reasonable efforts include posting a list of found animals at the shelter.  Such lists contain information as to the type of dog found, a general description of the animal’s appearance, where the animal was found, and when it was found. When an animal is brought in, the shelter must add it to the list; generally, such lists are kept in chronological order with the most recently found animals listed first. Persons searching for their lost animal can look through the list or obtain information from the shelter over the phone. In general, courts will uphold the decision of a humane society to adopt out an animal, as long the humane society has complied with any necessary statutory requirements, such as the minimum holding period.  This policy protects the shelter against lawsuits from owners who do not make reasonable efforts to find their animals.
An animal that is brought in to a shelter by a third party (for example, a neighbor) is treated the same as an animal brought in by local authorities. The shelter must make reasonable efforts to contact the owner, such as calling or writing to notify the owner of the animal’s whereabouts. If the owner does not respond, the shelter is obligated to keep the animal for the requisite number of days; after that, the shelter gains title to the animal.
Some states require a shelter to hold a licensed animal longer than an unlicensed one. There are policy reasons for this; first, an unlicensed animal is more likely to be sick or diseased from lack of care. A license shows that someone owns, and presumably cares for, the animal. An animal may escape while its owner is on vacation; therefore, it makes sense for shelters to hold licensed animals longer, to give the owner a chance to reclaim his animal. Also, a licensed animal is generally one which has a loving home; shelters prefer to return an animal to a place where it can get proper care, rather than have the animal be euthanized or adopted out to an unknown family.
There are narrow exceptions in most state statutes that allow shelters to euthanize animals before the minimum holding period has expired. If an animal is extremely sick, believed to be experiencing extreme pain and suffering, or has a contagious disease, the shelter can kill the animal  Such determination of the animal’s condition needs to be made by a veterinarian or the shelter supervisor.  If the shelter can determine who the owner of the animal is, it must make efforts to contact the owner by calling him before destroying the animal.  Generally, in cases in which the owner is known, the shelter must wait twenty-four hours after obtaining possession of the animal before destroying it; during this time, the shelter must repeatedly call the owner.  Such exceptions serve to protect both the specific animal and the animal population in general; allowing a contagious animal into a shelter would likely result in all of the animals becoming sick and therefore unadoptable.
Once a shelter has held an animal for the statutory minimum number of days, the shelter has several options regarding the disposition of the animal. The shelter can immediately adopt out the animal to a human family. It can also hold the animal for future adoptions; many shelters will do this while continuing to evaluate the animal for its potential success as an adoptee. Shelters can also decide to put the animal to sleep or, in limited circumstances, to sell it for research.
States have specific statutes regulating how long a shelter must hold an animal before the shelter gains title to that animal. Beyond the statutorily required minimum holding period, shelters may hold animals for as long as they wish, under their own policies. Many shelters hold animals that are considered adoptable as long as there is room in the shelter; animals with health or temperament problems may be killed soon after the statutorily mandated holding period is up. Further, many shelters will hold animals that are easily identifiable – for example, through tags, tattoos, or micro-chips, longer than the required minimum. In fact, some states have different holding periods for animals that are easily identifiable than for ones who are not.
In California , animals must be kept at a shelter for six days, not including the day on which the animal was found.  After that, the animal can be adopted out or euthanized.  However, if the shelter has fewer than three full-time employees, a found animal must be kept only four days before being adopted or euthanized. Finally, if the shelter is open until at least seven in the evening, the shelter only needs to keep found animals for four days. Again, a shelter in California that sells found animals for research (after the statutory waiting period has run) must post a sign somewhere in its shelter that notifies the public of this practice. In New York , both public and private shelters must keep a found animal for five days before adopting or euthanizing it.  New York law makes no distinction between licensed and unlicensed animals; all must be kept for five days.
Similarly, several states have statutes against shelters selling found animals to laboratories for research.  Some states also require a shelter that does sell animals for research to notify the public of such policy.  Additionally, the Federal Pet Theft Act trumps any state or local statute that allows an animal to be sold for research before being held for five days. Therefore, an owner has a cause of action against a shelter that is not in compliance with the Federal Pet Theft Act, even if the shelter is in compliance with its local laws.
Courts will generally uphold the decision of a humane society or animal shelter to euthanize an animal over the owner’s claim to that animal if the humane society followed all statutory obligations.  If a humane society has not complied with statutory mandates, in particular by not holding the animal the requisite minimum number of days or not attempting to contact the owner, the owner will likely be successful in a suit against the humane society.  Therefore, it is good policy for a shelter to establish a holding period that complies or exceeds that required by local law, in order to avoid liability to the owner. In addition, it is generally considered good policy to hold licensed animals as long as possible, particularly if the animal is adoptable.
When a person “adopts” an animal from a shelter, that person is really buying the animal; the transaction is covered by the Uniform Commercial Code, which regulates the sale of goods. Although humane societies can place conditions on the adoption of animals,  such conditions are difficult to enforce once the animal is placed with the new owner, as title then transfers from the shelter to the owner.  More than half of all states now require that animals be spayed or neutered before being adopted,  and contracts for adopting an animal that is too young to be fixed may include a clause requiring the new owner to get the animal fixed once it is old enough.  In such cases, the owner usually must leave a deposit with the shelter, which is forfeited if the owner cannot provide proof of spaying or neutering within the designated period of time.  Shelters are able to make extensive inquiries into an animal’s future living conditions before agreeing to the adoption of an animal. For example, shelters can inquire about the animal’s access to a backyard or other exercise;  other animals or children in the home;  and whether the animal will be kept indoors or out.  Shelters can call to check-up on an animal soon after an adoption;  however, the shelter generally cannot investigate or follow-up on the animal without cause. Shelters have cause to investigate an animal if there are reports of abuse or neglect, or if the animal is found running at large or otherwise abandoned in a public place. Such investigations are usually done by animal control. Of course, if the owner is suspected of animal cruelty, the animal control can also instigate criminal investigations.
Shelters must be aware of their obligations and limitations in caring for lost or abandoned animals. Shelters must hold animals for a minimum number of days so that an owner has a chance to reclaim a lost pet. The holding period protects the owner’s interest and title in the animal, and also protects the animal itself by attempting to return the animal to its caring owner. Allowing the shelter to take title to the animal after the requisite holding period benefits the animal. At that point, when the owner either cannot be found or does not want the animal, the best interests of the animal are determined by the shelter. Adoptable animals are generally held and placed with a new family; animals that are too sick, old, or unsociable to be adopted are euthanized. Once a shelter gains title to the animal, it can do with the animal as it sees fit, and its decision will be upheld by courts as long as the shelter complied with state law. Following state law is essential not only to protect the rights of animal owners, but also to protect the shelter from tort actions by the owner; state law also ultimately protects the animal itself.
 See Mary Randolph, Dog Law (4 th edition 2001).
 See, for example, Oregon that defines an animal as the property of its owner.
 See Lisa Kirtk, Recognizing Man’s Best Friend: An Evaluation of Damages Awarded when a Companion Pet is Wrongfully Killed , 25 Whittier L.Rev. 115 (2003).
 See Andrew Boxberger, The Missing Link in the Evolution of Law: Michigan’s Failure to Reflect Society’s Value of Companion Animals , 5 T.M. Cooley J. Prac. & Clinical L. 139 (2002).
 See Elizabeth Paek, Fido Seeks Full Membership in the Family: Dismantling the Property Classification of Companion Animals by Statute , 25 U. Haw. L. Rev. 481 (2003), in which the author discusses a case where a man was prosecuted for killing a woman’s dog. See also Lynn B. Epstein, Resolving Confusion in Pet Owner Tort Cases: Recognizing Pets’ Anthropomorphic Qualities Under a Property Classification , 26 S. Ill. U.L. J. 31 (2001) and Richardson v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough , 705 P.2d 454 (Al. 1985), in which the court used the fair market value of the animal in awarding damages; compare with the discussion in Valuing Companion Animals in Wrongful Death Cases: A Survey of Current Court and Legislative Action and a Suggestion for Valuing Pecuniary Loss of Companionship (note: pdf version) , Elaine T. Byszewski , 9 Animal L. 215 (2003), in which the author discusses various courts’ opinions stating the need for legislation that allows for emotional distress damages in wrongful death of pets cases.
 See Epstein , supra note 5, and Paek, supra note 5.
 See Garry W. Beyer, Estate Planning for Pets , 15-AUG Prob. & Prop. 7 (2001).
 In addition, leaving an animal in this manner will also likely be a criminal offense. See Randolph, Dog Law at 13/9.
 This is similar to the concept of eminent domain, in which the government gains property rights to land. In addition, the government in most states has the right to immediately destroy any animal running at large that poses an immediate threat or danger to the public; see Dog Law, supra note 1. In general, however, animal control authorities must impound an animal running at large and make efforts to contact its owners before gaining property rights in that animal. Dog Law .
 See Pet Fair, Inc. v. Humane Soc. Of Greater Miami , 583 So.2d 407 (1991); see also C.R.S.A. § 35-80-106.3 ( Colorado ), which provides that shelters must hold owner-forfeited animals for the minimum holding period. This is a somewhat unusual holding and does not seem to be the general rule.
 See, for example, 59 Okl..St.Ann § 698.16; Ohio Revised Code Annotated R.C. § 4741.30; V.A.M.S. 340.288 ( Missouri ); C.R.S.A. § 12-64-115 ( Colorado ); 17 M.R.S.A. § 1021 ( Maine ).
 State statutes generally require the facility to hold the animal for at least ten days, and often up to thirty days. See, for example, Animal Hospital of Elmont, Inc. v. Gianfrancisco , 418 N.Y.S.2d 992 (1979). In New York , a person who leaves an animal for a specified period of time with a kennel or veterinary facility and does not claim the animal within ten days of the last day of service is deemed to have abandoned the animal. If the period of time the animal is to be left with the facility is unspecified, the animal is considered to have been abandoned twenty days after the facility notifies the owner that it still has the animal. See also Massachusetts Soc. For Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Commissioner of Public Health, 158 N.E.2d 487 (1959); Massachusetts has a ten-day period in which a facility must hold an abandoned animal before turning it over to an animal shelter.
 See Gianfrancisco , supra note 15, in which the court found that a facility that prematurely turns an animal over to a shelter can be liable for that animal’s costs.
 See People v. Rogers , 708 N.Y.S.2d 795 (2000), which discusses the New York rule that an animal left in the public for more than three hours is deemed abandoned, and its owner can be charged with a misdemeanor. See also Anderson v. George , 233 S.E.2d 407 (1977) for a description of how West Virginia deals with animal abandonment.
 See Broden v. Marin Humane Society , 83 Cal. Rptr. 235 (1999).
 Id . See also Dog Law , supra note 1, in which the author points out that unless an animal running at large poses an immediate threat to the public, animal control authorities must hold the animal for the minimum number of days and attempt to contact the owner before destroying or adopting out the animal. Dog Law , at 2/12.
 See Broden , supra note 18.
 Id . ; see also Pet Fair, Inc. v. Humane Soc. Of Greater Miami , 553 So.2d 407 (1991).
 Williams v. McMahan , 2002 WL 242538 (2002).
 Morgan v. Kroupa , 702 A.2d 630 ( Vt. 1997).
 Mary Randolph, Dog Law 18.
 See Morgan v. Kroupa , 702 A.2d 630 ( Vt. 1997).
 Morgan v. Kroupa, supra note 24.
 See Hubbard v. City of Oxford, Inc., 717 So.2d 814 (1998).
 See State v. Branstetter , 45 P.3d 137 (Or.App. 2002).
 See discussion on page 3, supra.
 See supra notes 9 and 10.
 See, for example, Scharfield v. Richardson , in which the court found that an owner’s property rights do not extinguish when the animal is lost and unlicensed. Compare to Williams , in which the court found that the owner’s failure to license an animal amounted to an expiration of the owner’s property rights.
 See Huss , Separation, Custody, and Estate Planning Issues Relating to Companion Animals , 74 U.Colo. L. Rev. 181 (2003) ; see also Johnson v. Atlanta Humane Society , 326 S.E.2d 585 (Ga.Ct. App. 1985).
 For example, the Kent County Humane Society in Walker , MI .
 When an animal is tattooed, its identification number is registered with the state department of agriculture, and also engraved on a tag to be worn on the animal’s collar. If the owner and animal move to a different state, the number can be registered with that state’s department of agriculture.
 People v. Youngblood , 109 Cal. Rptr.2d 776 (2001).
 C.R.S.A. § 35-80-106.3 ( Colorado ).
 Ca. Food & Ag. 31108.
 However, it is California ’s state policy that no adoptable or treatable animal should be euthanized. See West’s Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 1834.4; an “adoptable” animal is one that does not pose a threat to the public.
 McKinney ’s Ag. & Markets Laws § 322.
 Section 6-111 of Division 4, Code of Ordinances for the City of Houston Texas .
 Title 10 of the Texas Health and Safety Code applies to animals, and does not include a section mandating a minimum time period for which a found animal must be kept.
 See id .; see also 2003 Cong. S 2346.
 7. U.S.C.C. § 2158 (b)(2).
 Connecticut , Delaware , Hawaii , New Jersey , New York , Pennsylvania , Rhode Island , and West Virginia all have statutes that prevent shelters from selling animals for research purposes. Dog Law , supra note 1.
 See supra note 11. See also Rebecca J. Huss, Valuing Man’s and Woman’s Best Friend: The Moral and Legal Status of Companion Animals , 86 Marq. L.Rev. 47 (2002); see also Johnson v. Atlanta Humane Society , 326 S.E.2d 585 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985); Lamare v. N. Country Animal League , 743 A.2d 598 (1999). In both cases, the courts found that as long as the humane society complied with statutory mandates, its transfer of title to third person (or killing the animal) was upheld against the owner’s original title, because the owner was found to have forfeited title by losing their animal.
 Richardson v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough , 705 P.2d 454 (Al. 1985), the owner was successful in a suit against an animal shelter that killed his dog before the minimum holding period had expired. The owner was able to recover market value damages.
 State legislatures usually give animal shelters the ability to devise their own policies regarding the adoption of animals; many state legislatures have enacted statutes stating that the shelter does not need to adopt an animal to a person unwilling to comply with the shelter’s policies or conditions. See, for example, V.A.M.S. § 273.405, which is the Missouri statute. See also the Louisiana statute, LSA-R.S. 3:2475, which further states that if the conditions agreed upon are not upheld, the shelter is able to bring a court action.
 Such conditions help the shelter to ensure that the adoption will be final, and that they will not end up taking title to the animal again due to unfit conditions.
 Arizona , Arkansas , California , Connecticut , DC, Florida , Georgia , Illinois , Iowa , Kansas , Kentucky , Louisiana , Massachusetts , Missouri , Montana , Nevada , Michigan , New Hampshire , New Mexico , New York , North Dakota , Oklahoma , Pennsylvania , Rhode Island , South Carolina , Tennessee , Texas , Utah , and Virginia all require that animals be spayed or neutered before leaving the shelter. Dog Law , supra note 1, at 2/20.
 See, for example, M.C.L.A. 287.338a ( Michigan ); West’s Ann. Cal.Civ.Code § 1815 ( California ).
 For example, most shelters will inquire about a prospective owner’s living conditions, and may not allow the person to adopt if she lives in an apartment unless she can show that the landlord allows pets.
 Some shelters require that all animals living in the same household meet before an additional animal is adopted; for example, the Kent County Humane Society in Michigan .
 Shelters may have policies that allow them to decline adoption to a person who intends to keep the animal solely out-of-doors. For example, in Michigan , local humane societies allow adoption of dogs only if they are to be housed indoors; however, in South Carolina , shelters will adopt to families who intend to have the dog be an outdoor-only animal.
 Several shelters in Michigan have a policy of making follow-up calls a week after an animal is adopted.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 35
 § 698
 § 4741
 § 12
 § 1021
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 35
 § 1834
 § 322
 § 2158
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 273
 § 1815