Patterson v. Rough Rd. Rescue, Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 July 2017
• Docket Number: No. ED 104425.,ED 104425.
• Citation: 529 S.W.3d 887
• Parties: Jamie F. PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROUGH ROAD RESCUE, INC., Steve Svehla and Linda Svehla, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

529 S.W.3d 887

Jamie F. PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.ROUGH ROAD RESCUE, INC., Steve Svehla and Linda Svehla, Defendants-Appellants.

No. ED 104425.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FIVE.

Filed: July 25, 2017 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied September 25, 2017

Jeffery T. McPherson, Harry M. Murray, IV., 7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800, St. Louis, MO 63105, Carolyn B. Theis, Daniel R. O'Brien, Daniel J. Kolde, 230 S. Bemiston, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO 63105, for appellants.

Timothy C. Sansone, Amanda N. Johnson, Zachary S. Rozier, 600 Washington Avenue, 15^th Floor, St. Louis, MO 63101, 11 North Main Street, Perryville, MO 63375, for respondent.

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JUDGE

"Every dog must have his day."¹ And today is Mack's day.²

Mack is a three-year old dog, believed to be a boxer-mastiff mix. He was rescued by Rough Road Rescue, an animal-rescue organization located in Perry County, Missouri. Rough Road Rescue was founded by Steve Svehla and his wife, Linda Svehla, with the purpose of caring for stray animals and placing them with good families. The rescue group placed over one hundred animals with adoptive families since its inception in 2013. Jamie Patterson adopted Mack from the rescue in early 2015. The rescue group, however, reclaimed Mack after he bolted and escaped from the Patterson yard. The group asserted that Ms. Patterson violated the adoption contract, and that they had the right to retake Mack. Ms. Patterson disagreed. And so the parties went to trial to resolve this dispute.

The Adoption

In 2014, Ms. Patterson stopped at the rescue facility with her son, so that he could donate some blankets he had made for the dogs housed at the rescue. While there, they met Mack, and instantly fell in love with him.

Ms. Patterson expressed an interest in adopting Mack. The rescue group informed her that they had a lengthy process for adoption that included several visits at the rescue facility, and then if those went well, a home visit. The rescue group also performs background and reference checks on the potential adoptive family. The only other matter the group mentioned to Ms. Patterson was that Mack would have to be neutered. Ms. Patterson believed that if she was approved for adoption, she would own Mack. And so she began the adoption process.

Ms. Patterson made two further visits to the rescue facility. The first time she and her son visited, to once again see Mack, and to ask Mr. Svehla a little more about Mack's personality. The second time, Ms. Patterson brought her other dog out to meet Mack, to see if the two dogs would get along.

The Svehlas brought Mack to the Patterson home for a visit on January 24, 2015. The visit went very well. Mack was very happy, and the Pattersons were very happy. The visit went so well, in fact, that the Svehlas decided to leave Mack and to complete the adoption that day. This came as a surprise to Ms. Patterson. Based on what the rescue group had told her, she expected this visit to be just a home visit and that the adoption would take place at some later date if the home visit went well.

To complete the adoption process, Ms. Patterson paid a $40 adoption fee and a $15 microchip fee. She also signed a document entitled "Animal Adoption Contract And Spay/Neuter Agreement." Ms. Patterson testified that the rescue group never told her that she would be required to sign anything before getting Mack. During the home visit, while Ms. Patterson and her children played with Mack, Mr. Svehla and Ms. Patterson's husband spoke about erecting a fence, and Mr. Svehla said that he would add that provision into the contract. Other than a fence, Mr. Svehla and Mr. Patterson did not talk about any other contractual terms. According to Ms. Patterson, the Svehlas neither read through the document with her before she signed it, nor told her what was in the document, other than reemphasizing the need to neuter Mack. Most particularly, the Svehlas did not review with Ms. Patterson the paragraph stating that Mack could be reclaimed by the rescue group if the Pattersons did not comply with the adoption contract. The process was so rushed that Ms. Patterson did not get a copy of the document she signed.

With the adoption process completed and Mack in her possession, Ms. Patterson believed that she owned Mack and that she had gained all rights to the dog. Ms. Patterson believed that the rescue group's use of the word "adoption" meant full ownership, and nothing less, Ms. Patterson did not know that the rescue group would claim the authority to take Mack away from her. Had she known this, Ms. Patterson would not have signed the contract. Ms. Patterson only became aware of the provision some eleven months after adopting Mack, when the rescue group reclaimed Mack and refused to give him back to the Patterson family.

The Adoption Contract

The adoption contract used by the rescue group states in pertinent part that the adopter "acknowledge[s] receiving custody of the above described animal from ROUGH ROAD RESCUE, INC.," and that the adopter "agree[s] to abide by the following conditions...."³ The contract then lists ten enumerated conditions, the most relevant of which are:

1. I will have my adopted pet spayed/neutered within 60 days of the spay/neuter date above. After which, I will provide proof of Sterilization to Rough Road Rescue, Inc., Missouri Law requires the spaying or neutering of animals adopted from this and similar facilities.

...

3. I will provide humane care, giving the animal proper food, water, shelter, exercise and love. I will provide competent veterinary care in case of illness and injury. I will have my pet inoculated annually or as recommended by a licensed veterinarian.

4. I will comply with all laws and ordinances in force in the area in which I reside, applicable to said animal.

...

9. Any noncompliance of this adoption contract by the above mentioned owner, may void this contract. And could immediately give a representative of Rough Road Rescue, Inc. the authority to take possession of said animal.

10. Additional Stipulation: (in handwriting) Adopter agrees to provide a fenced yard for said animal by May 1^st, 2015.

Rough Road Rescue drafted its own adoption contract. Mrs. Svehla and Gila Todd, then secretary and member of the rescue's board of directors, crafted the agreement, using provisions and language that they found in contracts used by other animal-rescue organizations.

Ms. Todd and the Svehlas disagree about the contract's meaning. In Ms. Todd's view, an "adoption," as used in Rough Road Rescue's contract, would sever all rights of the previous owner. To her, "adoption" means that the animal is transferred to a new family, to be a family member of that adoptive family, much like the adoption of a child. In short, she believes that Rough Road Rescue should not consider itself the owner of the animal after adoption. Mr. Svehla, on the other hand, believes the adoption is conditional and that he has the legal right to retake Mack. However, he also indicated at trial that he did not fully appreciate the meaning of the terms of the contract. He acknowledged that terms in the contract could be construed as having two different meanings, depending on the circumstances. Mrs. Svehla testified that the group's intention in placing an animal was to secure it a permanent home.

Mack, the Recidivist Runner

By numerous accounts, Mack fit in very well with the Patterson family. He enjoyed playing with the children, and loved to run around the yard with them. Ms. Patterson had Mack neutered and ensured that he received all his shots. Ms. Todd, the board member, photographed the family with Mack, and thought the Pattersons were a good fit for Mack. To her, the Patterson home was a very loving household, and Mack seemed very happy. The only difficulty was that Mack absconded on several occasions. Ms. Patterson acknowledged that Mack was "very quick." The town of Perryville cited Ms. Patterson three times for her dog running at large. She pleaded guilty to the offenses, because she acknowledges that she should obey the law.

On the last occasion Mack took off, both Ms. Patterson and Rough Road Rescue placed rewards for Mack's return. Mack was returned to Rough Road Rescue. Ms. Patterson entreated for Mack's return to her home. Initially Mr. Svehla prevaricated about possessing Mack. Ultimately Mr. Svehla refused to return Mack, asserting that Ms. Patterson would never see Mack again. When the Board of Rough Road Rescue voted to back Mr. Svehla in his refusal, Ms. Todd resigned. She described the rescue group's conduct as "shady and underhanded."

Legal Proceedings

Ms. Patterson sued the Svehlas and Rough Road Rescue for replevin and conversion. Ms. Patterson alleged that she was the owner of Mack, and that she was entitled to immediate possession of Mack, then wrongfully in the defendants' possession. Ms. Patterson argued that she became the owner of Mack upon signing the adoption contract and gaining possession of Mack on January 24, 2015. The defendants, believing they had the legal right to retake Mack, countered that ownership remained conditional on Ms. Patterson complying with the terms in the adoption contract, and that under that contract, they had the right to retake Mack if Ms. Patterson failed to comply with the contract's terms. Defendants argued that Ms. Patterson had breached the contract by failing to provide a fenced yard by May 1, 2015, by failing to keep a fenced yard after that date, and by violating the city's running-at-large ordinance. The defendants thus counterclaimed for breach of contract, seeking a declaration that Ms. Patterson had breached the contract, that the rescue had a right to retake possession and ownership of Mack, and that Ms. Patterson was divested of any claim to the dog.

The parties proceeded to a bench trial, after which the trial court ruled in favor of Ms. Patterson. The trial court granted Ms. Patterson's petition for...