Pet Custody Dispute | Conversion of the Dog

Kidnapping (dog-napping) case gets appellate attention.
Majority acknowledges - in dicta - that it's about more than just property, at least for dog lovers.

Augillard v. Madura and Richard Toro, No. (Tex.App.- Austin, June 24, 2008)( ) )(animal law, tort of conversion re: dog) (Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson)Shalanda Augillard v. Tiffany Madura and Richard Toro
Appeal from 274th District Court of Hays County
Disposition: Reversed and rendered

O P I N I O N

This appeal arises from a suit for conversion filed by Shalanda Augillard alleging that Tiffany Madura and Richard Toro wrongfully exercised dominion and control over Augillard’s black cocker spaniel, Jazz, who was recovered from New Orleans, her dog, Hope Floats (“Hope”), is not the same dog that Augillard lost in the flood.

The circumstances following the hurricane have been well documented, particularly concerning the effects on New Orleans’s pet population:

Hurricane Katrina made landfall at 6:10 a.m. on August 29, 2005. Within hoursLouisiana’s levee system was overtopped and breached. By August 31, eightypercent of New Orleans was under water. The media bombarded the public withimages and stories of animals stranded alone amidst the devastation. These accountspoignantly conveyed the message that our national policies and laws were severelyflawed when it came to animals and disasters.

Megan McNabb, Pets in the Eye of the Storm: Hurricane Katrina Floods the Courts With Pet Custody Disputes, 14 Animal L. 71, 72 (2007) (citations omitted).

Madura responded that while she did adopt a dog that had been rescued from New Orleans, her dog, Hope Floats (“Hope”), is not the same dog that Augillard lost in the flood. The case was tried before the court, which found that Augillard failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the dog in question was Jazz and entered judgment in favor of Madura. Augillard asserts on appeal that the trial court erred in disregarding conclusive evidence, including forensic DNA analysis, establishing that Hope and Jazz are the same dog and in denying Augillard’s request for injunctive relief. In two points of error, Augillard challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s judgment. Because we conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient, we reverse and render judgment in favor of Augillard.

See remainder of opinion by cliching Augillard v. Madura (Tex.App. - Austin 2008) (or download pdf version on court's web site)