http://www.dangerousdoglaw.com

Replevin

The first thing to do is get the dog back

As they say in sports, the best defense is a good offense.  Filing a Writ of Replevin when the dog is first impounded is one of the best ways to defend a dangerous dog case.

You need to get possession of the dog.  Who has the dog influences everything about the case.  Most people, after losing possession of their companion will do most anything to get it back, including just accepting the Dangerous Dog Classification and all that goes with it. And of course when that happens, you've waived any right to appeal the designation.  In Marion County, Florida, you can't even visit your dog during impoundment, which makes it even more likely that the Classification will simply be accepted.  This happens about 90% of the time in my practice, and I can't blame the owners.  Having a loved one in solitary confinement without visitation is impossible to take.  And Animal Control knows this. 

To add insult to injury, they charge you boarding fees everyday your dog is there-yet you know nothing about how it is being cared for. If the dog stays there for any length of time, you could end up owing more than all the fines and other fees combined.

The appeal could take years,  with no guarantee of sucess. If you lose you could owe thousands of dollars in boarding fees.  How is it logical to take such a course of action?  It's not. They know that.

So the only way to proceed is to file a Writ of Replevin and get possession of the dog back to your client. A Writ of Replevin forces Animal Control to go before a judge and explain why they should retain possession of the dog pending the dangerous dog litigation. The court considers who has a superior possessory right. 

The Writ of Replevin is based solely on statute in Florida, F.S. § 78.  There are some procedural requirements that you have to comply with.  You must make a demand for the dog to be returned as a condition precedent, unless such a demand would be futile. The defendant may be able to keep the dog if it posts a bond, and the bond amount is usually determined from the allegation of value in the complaint. "Further showing" affidavits must be filed as well.  An example of the "Further Showing" affidavits filed in ULU's case can be found here.  These issues will be discussed in more detail in a subsequent article.  However, you can see the Writ of Replevin I filed in ULU's case here. It changes the whole posture of the case. If the appeal takes a year, no problem. The dog is at home and boarding fees are not accruing.

SAMPLE PLEADINGs

Sammeth v. City of Seattle - Complaint 

Stefaniw v. Marion County - Writ of Replevin

RELEVANT CASE LAW

Folkers v. City of Waterloo, 582 F.Supp.2d 1141 (USDCNC Iowa 2008) - Not specifically on point, but the ordinance involved allowed the owner to keep the dog pending appeal.  Animal Control and the City Attorney disagreed on whether the dog should be given to the owner. The city council, fearing the dog would be removed voted 7-0 to keep the dog in the hands of animal control. At a later hearing, a question was raised about accrued boarding fees. Several days after that, Cleo was returned to the owner and Cleo was moved to a ranch in Texas.