SKOGLUND, J.On
suspicion of inadequate care, defendant Addison County Humane Society (ACHS)
seized Suzanne and Elizabeth Hegarty's elderly mare, Paka. The Hegartys sued
ACHS in Addison Superior Court alleging claims for conversion and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. The superior court granted ACHS's motion for
summary judgment and the Hegartys appealed. we affirm.
The
Hegartys argue that when ACHS seized Paka it unlawfully withheld possession of
their property in exclusion and defiance of their right and the court should
have found a conversion as a matter of law.
Initially Hegartys contend that the trial court erred when it
relied on Morgan v. Kroupa to characterize Paka as a pet and thus not subject
to a conversion claim. 167 Vt. 99, 103-05, 702 A.2d 630, 633-34 (1997). We
agree.
The trial court
correctly cited Morgan for the proposition that, in the context of a conversion
claim, the property interest in pets is of such a highly qualified nature that
it may be limited by overriding public interests. Id. at 105, 702 A.2d at 634.
We do not quarrel with this analysis, but rather with the court's suggestion
that our Morgan ruling supports characterizing Paka as a pet.
In Morgan, we explicitly distinguished between
pets — dogs, cats, and hamsters — and "agricultural animals with substantial
economic value." Id. The fact that a horse may also be considered a pet by
its owner does not remove it from the category of agricultural animal with
respect to the property interests at issue in a conversion claim. Id. Paka is
not a pet and the trial court's ruling to the contrary was in error.
There
is no dispute that the Hegartys are Paka's rightful owners or that, by seizing
the horse, ACHS was withholding possession of Paka from them. The question is
whether that deprivation was lawful. . . .
Peter F. Langrock of Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, Middlebury, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.. . .
No comments:
Post a Comment