Opinion ID: 1208387
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Refusal to Return Horses

Text: Next, appellants argue the circuit court erred by not ordering the immediate return of their illegally seized horses. [8] Appellants contend that because they were acquitted on 56 charges, those 56 horses are not subject to forfeiture. We disagree. Section 47-1-150(F) provides that whoever takes charge of an animal under the statute: [S]hall provide for the animal until either: (1) The owner is adjudged by the court to be able to provide adequately for, and have custody of, the animal, in which case the animal shall be returned to the owner upon payment for the care and provision of the animal while in the agent's or officer's custody; or (2) The animal is turned over to the officer or agent as provided in Section 47-1-170 and a humane disposition of the animal is made. In our opinion, section 47-1-150(F)(1) applies to the 56 horses at issue (plus their offspring). Therefore, some type of hearing and fact-finding are required to determine whether appellants are able to adequately provide for the horses. If so, the horses may be returned upon payment for their care. Id. Thus, we reject appellants' contention that the circuit court erred by refusing to order the return of appellants' horses. In addition, we find a remand to the magistrate is necessary to determine whether appellants are now able to adequately provide care for these horses. If appellants are deemed able to care for the horses, the return of the horses may be ordered, provided that appellants make the requisite payments envisioned by section 47-1-150(F)(1).