Please visit my author page at amazon.com
Dannielle Zephier v. Derrick Agate, Jr., et al. Minnesota Abandoned Property
Replevin for a dog. Minn. Stat. 345.75 specifies a procedure for the transfer of title to abandoned property. To acquire title under that statute, the possessor must give notice to the owner in a specified manner by certified mail. The issue in this case was whether that statute abrogated the common law. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that it does not. Accordingly, there are two methods of transfering title of abandoned property.
The plaintiff was the owner of two dogs, Oliver and Alex. She traveled frequently for work, and the dogs stayed with her father in South Dakota. In 2015, the father moved, and the dogs needed new quarters. By that time, the plaintiff lived in California, and could not have the dogs in her home. The defendant agreed to take care of both dogs, although there was no written agreement.
The plaintiff flew back to Minnesota multiple times to visit the dogs, and she communicated regularly with the defendant. In November 2016, the plaintiff moved Alex to California to live with her. She flew and could only take the smaller dog. She planned to rent a car to move Oliver at a later date.
In October 27, plaintiff flew to Minnesota to visit Oliver. She texted the defendant, who said that he would be right out with the animal. Three minutes later, he texted that he couldn't bring him out. He came outside to talk but refused to hand over the dog. The police were called, but refused to get involved in the civil matter. A few days later, the defendant registered the dog with the City of Minneapolis.
The plaintiff filed a police report, and then sued in small claims court seeking replevin. The referee denied replevin, but entered a monetary judgment of $570 in favor of the plaintiff. She then removed the case to the district court, which denied any recovery. The District Court held that Oliver had been abandoned when she picked up Alex and returned to California. She appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which reversed. 942 N.W.2d 380. The court of appeals held that the abandoned property statute had abrogated the common law, and that the defendant had not complied with the notice provisions of the statute. The defendant then asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the case, which it agreed to do.
The Supreme Court affirmed, but on different grounds. The Supreme Court first held that the statute had not abgrogated the common law. Instead, the statute provides an alternative method of dealing with abandoned property. Title can be transferred by following the notice requirements of the statute, or in the alternative, the possessor of the property can prove abandonment under the common law.
The high court agreed that the defendant had not satisfied the notice requirements of the statute. Therefore, it turned to the issue of whether the plaintiff had abandoned the animal under the common law.
Abandonment under the common law is defined by cases such as Bd. of Trs. of First Congregational Church v. Cream City Mut. Ins. Co., 96 N.W.2d 690 (Minn. 1959). There must be an actual relinquishment of the property, accompanyined by an intent to part with it permanently.
The high court held that neither element was met. It noted that the dispute arose only after the plaintiff flew to Minnesota for the very purpose of visiting her dog. Also, it noted that the decision to bring one dog home in 2016 did not imply abandonment of the other dog.
Since the dog was not abandoned, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, thus reversing the decision of the district court.
A photo of the animal is available at this news article about the case.
No. A19-0907(Minn. Mar. 31, 2021).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his
low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case
summaries
Copyright 2021, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com