Stephanie Fear v. Judith Rouillard et al. (2015)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff, Stephanie Fear (hereinafter “plaintiff”), commenced this civil action by writ, summons and complaint dated August 4, 2014.   The plaintiff claims that her defendant neighbors, Judith and Richard Rouillard (hereinafter “defendants”), failed to return two kittens to her after her return from a business trip.   The defendants contend that the kittens should not be returned to the plaintiff due to improper care and treatment.

The issues were joined and the parties were heard by the court on May 19, 2015.   The plaintiff, based upon the evidence submitted and agreement of the parties, is found to be the owner of the felines in question.   The defendants, who initially took the cats in their possession on or about July 13, 2014, did so without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiff.   The parties did orally agree prior to her departure, however, that the cats were to remain in the possession and control of the defendants until the plaintiff returned on or about July 29, 2014.   When the plaintiff returned from her business trip, the cats were not returned by the defendants.   The defendants contend that they were advised by the local animal control officer (“ACO”) to retain possession of the cats based upon their claim of improper care and treatment by the plaintiff.

Based upon the evidence presented and applicable Connecticut law,¹ the court finds that the plaintiff is the owner of the two felines in question.   While the defendants' intentions were honorable, the court cannot permit them to retain possession and control of the cats.   They relied on advice of the local ACO who advised them to keep the animals until the matter was investigated.

The state police records (Defendants' Ex. B, pp. 6–8) reflect the “passing of the ball” from the State Police to the ACOs, to civil courts to resolve the matter.   It is important to note that the police found no criminal activity with the cats in good physical condition after vet care at the expense of the defendants.   The local ACO told the defendants to keep the cats and that he would commence legal action for neglect and adoption.   He was later instructed by the State ACO that the matter of the ownership of the cats would be handled civilly.   The Lyme ACO was further directed not to get involved, as there is no indication of current abuse/neglect (Defendants' Ex. B, p. 7.) While the defendants' intentions were honorable and present a true love for the cats, they must be returned to the possession and/or control of the legal owner, the plaintiff.

ORDER

It is hereby ordered that judgment enter in favor of the plaintiff and that the two felines be returned to the plaintiff, the rightful owner with costs.

Devine, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. No action was taken by the local and/or state ACO pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 22–329a et seq. regarding neglected or cruelly treated animals..  FN1. No action was taken by the local and/or state ACO pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 22–329a et seq. regarding neglected or cruelly treated animals.

Devine, James J., J.