Wethersfield v. Eser

Syllabus

The plaintiff town filed a verified petition pursuant to statute (§ 22-329a) seeking, inter alia, custody in favor of the plaintiff of twenty-four animals that had been taken from the defendant by its animal control officer, M, and that allegedly were neglected and/or cruelly treated. The plaintiff also sought an order requiring the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff for its expenses in caring for the seized animals in the amount of $15 per day per animal in accordance with § 22-329a (h), which provides a direct remedy for a municipality seeking reimbursement for care that it provides to animals adjudicated as abused or neglected. M took cus- tody of the animals after the animals were found in the defendant's van in filthy and unhygienic conditions following a traffic stop. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's petition, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to file the petition within ninety-six hours of the plaintiff's having taken custody of the animals pursuant to § 22-329a (a). The trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, reasoning that the ninety-six hour require- ment in § 22-329a was directory rather than mandatory. Subsequently, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the verified petition and the court's order to show cause as to why the relief sought should not be granted. At the evidentiary hearing, the owner of a private kennel at which the animals were housed, testified that the defendant had paid for the board and care of the animals at her kennel in the months following their seizure. The trial court determined that the animals were neglected and cruelly treated and transferred ownership of the animals to the plaintiff and declined to award the plaintiff any monetary compen- sation, concluding that the defendant voluntarily had paid for the care and custody of the animals at the private kennel, which exceeded $15 per day per animal. Following the trial court's judgm