Lisa A. Adams v. Lisa Wallace et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

I. INTRODUCTION

The Joy of horses is not the riding, jumping, racing, showing, or grooming, but of owning.

Unknown Author.

The issue in this case is the ownership and right to possession of two horses—Romeo and Sassy.   The plaintiff, Lisa Adams, brought this action in replevin and conversion claiming that the defendants, Lisa Wallace and Kylie Wallace, wrongfully took Romeo and Sassy from the plaintiff's property.   Adams claims that she became the owner of the horses in 2007 when the Wallaces gave her the horses.   The Wallaces claim that they had every right to take the horses because they never relinquished ownership of the horses, but instead let Adams use them pursuant to a “free lease.” ¹  There is no question that the Wallaces freely transferred possession of the horses to Adams in 2007.   The only question is what were the terms of the transfer.

The court conducted a full bench trial on the merits on March 31, 2011.²  The court heard testimony from the parties and four other witnesses, and received into evidence a number of exhibits.   Based on the evidence presented, the court makes the following findings of facts.

II. FINDINGS OF FACTS

On November 30, 2000, the defendant Lisa Wallace acquired ownership of a quarter horse mare named Just Cinnamon.   Because of her demeanor, Just Cinnamon was nicknamed Sassy.   At the time that Wallace purchased her, Sassy was 9 years old.   Wallace paid $3,000 for Sassy.   On May 23, 2002, Lisa Wallace bought a quarter horse stallion named Winners Party.   The Wallaces gave him the nickname Romeo.   Romeo was a little over a year old when Wallace acquired him.   The Wallaces registered both horses with the American Quarter Horse Association.   From the time the Wallaces acquired Sassy and Romeo until they transferred them to Adams the horses were boarded at the Coventry Riding Stables in Coventry, Connecticut.   During those years, Kylie was primarily responsible for caring for the horses, while Lisa paid the expenses associated with their care and feeding.   In addition, Kylie had a life long friend, Sandra Avery, who spent a considerable amount of time with the Wallaces and the horses.

By the spring of 2007 the Wallaces were looking for a new home for the horses.   There was conflicting testimony as to why.   Lisa testified that they had no choice but to move the horses because the Coventry Riding Stables were being sold.   Kylie testified that she could not afford to take care of the horse herself, and her mother had been supporting them.   Significantly, the Wallaces did not simply look for a new stable at which they could pay to board the horses.   Instead, they began to look for someone who would take possession of the horses at no expense to the Wallaces.   The court infers from this course of conduct that financial considerations played at least a part in the Wallaces' decision making.   Consequently, the Wallaces and Avery began putting the word out that they were looking for a new home for Sassy and Romeo.

One of the people who heard about the horses was Jean Adamcik.   Adamcik works at a therapeutic riding stable which provides services to special needs children.   A co-worker had told her that Sassy and Romeo were available.   In the spring of 2007, Adamcik went to Coventry to see the horses and meet the Wallaces.   She was told that the horses were being offered free of charge as long as they were kept together and well cared for.   Adamcik did not think that Romeo was suitable for her therapeutic riding program so she could not agree to the condition of keeping the horses together.   Consequently, there was no further discussion between her and the Wallaces regarding the transfer of the horses.   At no time though, did the Wallaces mention the concept of a free lease.

During this same period of time, Sandra Avery contacted her uncle, Tim Slayton, and asked him if he knew anyone who might be interested in the horses.   Slayton testified credibly that Sandra told him that the horses were being offered free to a good home, with certain conditions.   The conditions were that the horses be well cared for and kept together, and that the Wallaces would be able to visit and ride the horses.   Sandra also told Slayton that Kylie was going away to school and could not afford to keep the horses.   While Slayton testified that he and Sandra did not discuss whether ownership of the horses would be transferred, he recalled Sandra saying that the Wallaces were looking to give away two free horses.   Sandra never used the term “free lease” during their conversation.³

Slayton conveyed the information he received from his niece to his co-worker, Adams.   Adams then contacted Avery.   Avery put Adams in contact with Kylie Wallace.   Adams then met with Kylie Wallace on two occasions.   Adams first wanted to meet the horses and test ride them.   Consequently, she met Kylie in Coventry in April 2007.   Adams brought a friend, Christopher Chvirko to this meeting.   Adams and Chvirko both testified that Kylie said that the Wallaces wanted to give the horses to a good home.   Kylie said that she had to give up the horses and could not afford to keep them.   She did have certain conditions that had to be agreed to by anyone who took the horses.   Kylie wanted the horses kept together;  did not want them ever to be sold;  did not want them ever to be placed in a show;  and wanted access to the horses whenever she chose.   Adams agreed to all of these conditions.   She assured Kylie she would take good care of the horses and keep them until they died of old age.⁴

After this first meeting with Kylie, Adams had a phone conversation with Lisa Wallace.   Adams testified that during that call Lisa stated that she was grateful that Adams was taking the horses and that they were going to a good home.   Lisa also told Adams that the Wallaces were going to hold onto the horses' registration papers because they did not want Adams to enter the horses in any shows, and did not want Sassy to be bred.   According to Adams, there was no discussion of a free lease.   Adams was familiar with the concept, having entered into a free lease when she was much younger.   Lisa testified that there was discussion of a free lease during her call with Wallace.   The court finds Adams' testimony more credible.   Overall, Adams was the more believable witness.   Her recollection of events was clear and specific.   By contrast, Lisa Wallace was vague on many details.   She blamed a prior injury and resulting cognitive problems for her inability to recall certain facts and her inability to follow certain questions.   Regardless of the reason for her faulty memory, it was clear to the court that her version of the events leading up to the transfer of the horses just did not ring true.

After talking to the Wallaces and meeting the horses, Adams arranged to pick up the horses.   When she picked up the horses, Kylie was very emotional and upset.   She did not want to transfer the horses to Adams.   It was primarily her mother's decision.   Kylie had no choice but to go along with the decision because she could not afford to take care of the horses herself.   In an effort to soothe Kylie, Adams told her that if she had second thoughts about the decision to call her.   In making this offer she intended it to apply to a change of heart in the next several hours or days, not years later.   Kylie did not testify to the contrary.   Kylie did testify that when Adams picked up the horses Kylie told her that they were entering into a free lease.   The court does not find that testimony to be credible.   It is just not believable that the first discussion of a lease would happen when the horses were being picked up.   Nor is it believable that the parties would enter into such a transaction with no writing whatsoever.⁵

Adams and Puleo transported the horses to Adams' property in Mansfield, CT. Kylie went with them.   Except for approximately six months from the summer of 2007 until February or March of 2008, the horses were continuously on Adams' Mansfield property until November 2010.⁶

It is undisputed that Adams met all of the conditions set forth by the Wallaces.   She took good care of Sassy and Romeo.   She did not show them.   She did not breed Sassy.   She kept Sassy and Romeo together at all times.   She permitted the Wallaces to visit the horses whenever they desired.   Between April 2007 and November 2010, Kylie visited and rode the horses on a number of occasions, both with Adams and by herself.   Nevertheless, for an extended period of time between 2008 and 2009 Kylie did not visit the horses at all, as she was somewhere out of state visiting her father.   In any event, the evidence was undisputed that Adams never attempted to impede or restrict the Wallaces' access to Sassy and Romeo.   The evidence was all undisputed that Adams paid all expenses associated with the horses, including feed, veterinarian, and grooming expenses from April 2007 until November 2010.

After not hearing from the Wallaces for a significant period of time, Adams received a call from Lisa Wallace in mid-November 2010.   Wallace told Adams that she had met a man who lived in Canterbury, and that he had a heated barn and two horses of his own.   Wallace suggested that it would be wonderful to move the horses there.   Adams was dismayed.   She was unsure what Wallace was proposing, but did not give her permission to move the horses.

Sometime after the call, Lisa Wallace left a note at Adams' property.   The note informed Adams that Wallace was “planning to move Sassy + Romeo this weekend.”   The note referred to the move as a “trial move” because Wallace was “not sure about the two horses already at my friend's home.”   After finding the note Adams called Wallace's home telephone several times and left messages for Wallace telling her that she did not consent to the move.⁷

Despite knowing that Adams did not consent to Sassy and Romeo being moved, on Monday, November 29, 2010, Lisa Wallace returned to Adams' Mansfield property with Kylie and another individual, with a trailer to remove the horses.   Adams was not home.   In light of her earlier phone conversation with Wallace and the note Wallace had left stating she intended to move the horses, Adams had bolted the gate to the fence where Sassy and Romeo were kept with two combination locks.   Wallace saw the locks.   By this point Wallace knew that Adams objected to the removal of Sassy and Romeo from her property.   Nevertheless, Wallace looked for and found a way to get through another fence by removing the fencing from its post, and setting it aside.   She then entered onto Adams' property, without Adams' permission, and along with Kylie and the third party, removed Sassy and Romeo, and placed them in the trailer.

Before leaving with the horses, Lisa Wallace left another note for Adams.   In the note, she told Adams that the horses would “now have a heated barn + lots of pastures—2 acres.”   Wallace admitted at trial that this was not true.   The horses were not going to Canterbury, as she had previously represented.   Instead, they were being transported to another farm in Coventry.   That farm does not have a heated barn.   The evidence further established that Wallace's representations about Canterbury were, at best, wild exaggerations.   She admitted that she had only gone out with the gentleman from Canterbury a couple of times, and that any mention of Sassy and Romeo moving to Canterbury was a passing reference.   She also testified that she had never even seen the Canterbury property.

Upon discovering the horses had been moved without her permission, Adams contacted the police, and then instituted this action.

III. DISCUSSION

The law governing Adams' claims is very straightforward.   In order to establish her right to replevin Sassy and Romeo, Adams must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she “has a general or special property interest with a right to immediate possession” and that the horses are being “wrongfully detained” from her.  Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52–515.   In order to establish the tort of conversion, Adams must prove that “without authorization, [the Wallaces] assume[d] and exercise[d] ownership over property belonging to [Adams], to the exclusion of [Adams'] rights.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Deming v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 279 Conn. 745, 770, 905 A.2d 623 (2006).

The court finds that she has proven the elements of both claims.   As to replevin, the evidence established that the Wallaces transferred ownership of Sassy and Romeo to Adams in 2007.   They gave her the horses subject to certain conditions.   It is undisputed that Adams has in all ways lived up to those conditions.   The evidence does not support the Wallaces' claim that the horses were transferred pursuant to a free lease.   Consequently, Adams has proven that she has a general property interest in the horses, namely, she has owned them since 2007.

She also has an immediate right to possession of the horses.   The agreement reached in 2007 was that the horses would stay in Adams' possession, so long as she met the conditions requested by the Wallaces.   She has met those conditions, and is, therefore, entitled to possession of the horses.

Finally, she has proven that the horses are being wrongfully detained from her.   The Wallaces had no right to remove the horses from Adams' property.   In fact, the manner in which they did move the horses is proof that they knew what they were doing was wrong.   They moved the horses at a time when Adams was not home.   They trespassed onto Adams' property, even though they knew that Adams objected to them removing the horses.   Despite seeing locks on the gate to the fence, they broke through another part of the fence, not intended for entry or exit, to surreptitiously remove the horses.   Furthermore, Lisa Wallace concocted an untrue story of where the horses were going to be moved, either to assuage Adams that the horses would be better off or to keep her from learning their true whereabouts.   In any event, the horses are owned by Adams, and the Wallaces' taking of Adams' property without her permission was wrongful.

As to conversion, Lisa and Kylie Wallace, without authorization, assumed control over Adams' property—Sassy and Romeo—to the exclusion of Adams' right when they moved the horses from Adams' property to another location over which Adams had no control.   Thus, Adams has proven all the necessary elements of her conversion claim.

What is left is to determine the remedy to which Adams is entitled.   At trial, Adams' counsel conceded that Adams had offered no evidence as to any damages.   She wants the horses returned to her.   She is entitled to that remedy.   Thus, the court orders that Lisa and Kylie Wallace immediately return Sassy and Romeo to Adams.   They must incur the costs of transporting and delivering the horses to Adams.   Furthermore, the horses should be returned in the same condition that they were in when they were removed by the Wallaces.   If the horses are returned promptly in that condition, then Adams is not entitled to any damages and none will be awarded.   If the horses are not returned, or returned in a damaged condition, then Adams may request a hearing in damages.

Finally, there is the issue of what access the Wallaces will have to Sassy and Romeo going forward.   The court raised the issue with the parties during closing arguments.   While Adams is entitled to ownership and possession of the horses under the parties' agreement, one of the conditions of her ownership is that she allow the Wallaces access to both horses.   Adams argues that that issue is not before the court in this action, and, therefore, cannot and should not be addressed in this decision.   The court agrees.   There is no claim here that Adams has breached the agreement by not allowing the Wallaces to have access to the horses.   Thus, there is no justiciable controversy for the court to decide.   Consequently, the court will not comment on or address what rights the Wallaces have regarding the horses after they are returned to Adams.   That will be left to another court on another day should another dispute arise between the parties over Sassy and Romeo.   Hopefully, that will never be the case.

Bright, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. A free lease is an arrangement by which a person is permitted to use a horse for a period of time free of charge so long as the person takes responsibility for all expenses of caring for the horse during the term of the free lease..  FN1. A free lease is an arrangement by which a person is permitted to use a horse for a period of time free of charge so long as the person takes responsibility for all expenses of caring for the horse during the term of the free lease.

FN2. The plaintiff had initially sought a prejudgment remedy of replevin.   The parties agreed that rather go forward with an evidentiary hearing on the prejudgment remedy application, they would submit the matter to the court for a full and final determination of the plaintiff's claims..  FN2. The plaintiff had initially sought a prejudgment remedy of replevin.   The parties agreed that rather go forward with an evidentiary hearing on the prejudgment remedy application, they would submit the matter to the court for a full and final determination of the plaintiff's claims.

FN3. Sandra's recollection of the conversation was somewhat different.   She recalls telling Slayton that the horses would be given pursuant to a free lease, and that the Wallaces would retain ownership of the horses, and wanted to be able to take them back at any time.   The court does not find Avery's testimony to be credible.   She admitted that she could not recall specifically what she said to Slayton.   She also has a very close relationship with both the Wallaces and the horses.   Thus, she has an interest in seeing them prevail.   Slayton, by contrast, has virtually no stake in this case.   He told Adams that the horses were available, but has no interest in the horses or where they might end up.   If anything, he would have an interest in supporting his niece's version of the events.   The fact that he testified contrary to his niece and her interests provides further credence to his version of the conversation..  FN3. Sandra's recollection of the conversation was somewhat different.   She recalls telling Slayton that the horses would be given pursuant to a free lease, and that the Wallaces would retain ownership of the horses, and wanted to be able to take them back at any time.   The court does not find Avery's testimony to be credible.   She admitted that she could not recall specifically what she said to Slayton.   She also has a very close relationship with both the Wallaces and the horses.   Thus, she has an interest in seeing them prevail.   Slayton, by contrast, has virtually no stake in this case.   He told Adams that the horses were available, but has no interest in the horses or where they might end up.   If anything, he would have an interest in supporting his niece's version of the events.   The fact that he testified contrary to his niece and her interests provides further credence to his version of the conversation.

FN4. The court finds it significant that Kylie claims to have no recollection of this first meeting.   She testified that she only remembers talking to Adams when she came to pick up the horses.   It is not believable that Adams would show up to pick up the horses without ever meeting them or discussing with Kylie her various conditions.   Kylie's professed lack of recollection about this first meeting also undermines her credibility regarding the second meeting where she claims to have told Adams that she was giving her the horses pursuant to a free lease..  FN4. The court finds it significant that Kylie claims to have no recollection of this first meeting.   She testified that she only remembers talking to Adams when she came to pick up the horses.   It is not believable that Adams would show up to pick up the horses without ever meeting them or discussing with Kylie her various conditions.   Kylie's professed lack of recollection about this first meeting also undermines her credibility regarding the second meeting where she claims to have told Adams that she was giving her the horses pursuant to a free lease.

FN5. Kylie testified that Adams' husband at the time, James Puleo, was supposed to prepare a written lease agreement.   Although both parties had him on their witness lists, Puleo was not present to testify by the time that the presentation of all other evidence had concluded.   Neither side requested a continuance to procure his attendance.   Thus, the record was closed, the parties submitted closing arguments, and left the courthouse.   Sometime later that day the court was informed that Puleo had arrived.   He was informed that the case had been fully submitted, and he left.   Kylie's claim that Puleo was supposed to draft a written lease is belied by the fact that there is no evidence that the Wallaces ever asked about the status of the written lease when none was delivered by Adams or Puleo.   Nor did the Wallaces demand the return of the horses when no written lease was prepared..  FN5. Kylie testified that Adams' husband at the time, James Puleo, was supposed to prepare a written lease agreement.   Although both parties had him on their witness lists, Puleo was not present to testify by the time that the presentation of all other evidence had concluded.   Neither side requested a continuance to procure his attendance.   Thus, the record was closed, the parties submitted closing arguments, and left the courthouse.   Sometime later that day the court was informed that Puleo had arrived.   He was informed that the case had been fully submitted, and he left.   Kylie's claim that Puleo was supposed to draft a written lease is belied by the fact that there is no evidence that the Wallaces ever asked about the status of the written lease when none was delivered by Adams or Puleo.   Nor did the Wallaces demand the return of the horses when no written lease was prepared.

FN6. Puleo owned property in Hampton, Connecticut.   The horses were on that property during this six-month period.   However, in early 2008, Adams and Puleo separated, and the horses returned to Mansfield..  FN6. Puleo owned property in Hampton, Connecticut.   The horses were on that property during this six-month period.   However, in early 2008, Adams and Puleo separated, and the horses returned to Mansfield.

FN7. Wallace claimed that she never received Adams' messages.   She did not dispute that they were left, but testified that she was having problem with her service provider, and as a result, she did not always receive messages left for her..  FN7. Wallace claimed that she never received Adams' messages.   She did not dispute that they were left, but testified that she was having problem with her service provider, and as a result, she did not always receive messages left for her.

Bright, William H., J.