Top Texas court says city's possession of stray dog didn't end owner rights
Ruling in a case near and dear to the hearts of animal lovers, the Texas Supreme Court has strengthened the ability of owners to reclaim a stray pet.
Siblings Alfonso and Lydia Lira did not lose their property rights in Monte, a German shepherd, simply because the dog had, for the first time, strayed from home and been picked up by the City of Houston’s animal control department, the court held Friday. Findlaw provides a copy of the opinion.
It took a little while for Lydia Lira to track the dog down, due to misinformation about his breed and status that was provided online, after he exited her home through an open garage door in January 2013. However, within nine days she found him in the care of a volunteer for the Greater Houston German Shepherd Dog Rescue, who had agreed to provide a foster home. Although the Liras offered to pay all the group’s expenses, the GHGSDR refused to return him.
The Liras sued for conversion and a trial court ordered the rescue group to return Monte to them. (The Liras had, the supreme court notes, paid $2,500 for the dog, another $10,000 for his training and considered him a beloved pet after caring for him for seven years.)
But the GHGSDR appealed, resulting in an intermediate ruling by Houston’s 14th Court of Appeals. It held that the Liras had lost their chance to get Monte back because they hadn’t exercised one of the options for doing so provided by city ordinance. The Texas Lawyer (sub. req.) reported on that ruling at the time.
On Friday, the supreme court reversed the appeals court and reinstated the trial court ruling. It noted that “the law abhors a forfeiture of property” and, quoting from an earlier decision, stated that “This rule is surely applicable here, as ‘a beloved companion dog is not a fungible, inanimate object like, say, a toaster.’ ”
City ordinances, which are interpreted under the same principles as statutes, provide for owners to reclaim their pets within a three-day period of impoundment, the court explained. After that, the animal can be sold to a new owner, subject to a 30-day redemption right of the original owner; euthanized; or, as in Monte’s case, “placed for adoption through a private nonprofit humane shelter.”
While none of these provisions expressly addressed the Liras’ ownership rights to Monte, under the circumstances, neither did they extinguish them, the supreme court ruled:
“[T]hese ordinances, whether considered individually or as a whole, did not expressly or impliedly divest the Liras of their ownership rights to Monte. Reading the ordinances as not extinguishing ownership is further compelled by the rule that any doubts as to their meaning should be resolved against a forfeiture of property. In short, Monte belonged to the Liras at the time they requested his return, and GHGSDR should have honored that request.”
The case outlived Monte, who died recently, attorney Zandra Anderson, who specializes in animal matters and represented the Liras, told Texas Lawyer (sub. req.).
A senior citizen by canine standards, he had been with the Liras since the trial court ruled in their favor in 2013, she said. “He was an old boy—he was 10. But his memory will be well served by helping other dogs and owners.”
The case was the first time Anderson has been before the supreme court in an animal-custody case, but she said they routinely provoke strong emotions and are “like family law on steroids,” reports the Texas Tribune.
George Gibson of Nathan Sommers Jacobs represents the GHGSDR. He did not immediately respond to requests for comment from the two publications.
