Lydia Lira and Alfonso Lira v. Greater Houston German Shepherd Dog Rescue, Inc., 488 S.W.3d 300

Alfonso and Lydia Lira jointly owned a German Shepherd, Monte Carlo, kept as a family pet for seven years; Alfonso bought and trained him.
Monte escaped from Lydia’s home on Jan. 1, 2013; Lydia actively searched, posted notices, and monitored listings but did not locate him before pickup.
City animal-control (BARC) picked up Monte Jan. 2, listed him incorrectly (breed and as an “owner surrender”), and noted a weak positive heartworm test; BARC scheduled euthanasia but requested rescue help first.
On Jan. 7 BARC transferred Monte to Greater Houston German Shepherd Dog Rescue (GHGSDR); Lydia identified Monte Jan. 9 and asked for his return but GHGSDR refused despite offers to reimburse expenses.
The Liras sued for return of Monte; the trial court entered a permanent injunction ordering GHGSDR to return Monte; the court of appeals reversed; the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Liras retained ownership rights after Monte was impounded	Liras: Monte remained their property; they did not abandon him and diligently sought him	GHGSDR: City procedures and transfer to rescue extinguished owners’ rights	Held: Liras retained ownership; impoundment and transfer did not divest ownership
Whether Houston ordinances divested owners of property rights when a dog is transferred to a private rescue	Liras: Ordinances do not expressly or impliedly transfer ownership to rescue; redemption rights persist	GHGSDR: Ordinances and impoundment scheme permitted loss of owners’ rights	Held: Ordinances construed against forfeiture; they did not divest ownership here
Whether owner’s alleged mistreatment or heartworm status justified retention by rescue	Liras: Heartworm evidence does not show cruelty or statutory basis for removal	GHGSDR: Health/condition might justify nonreturn or adoption placement	Held: Alleged mistreatment insufficient; separate statutory cruelty procedures exist and were not used
Proper remedy when owner proves title to dog kept by a private group after impoundment	Liras: Return of dog and injunction ordering return	GHGSDR: Opposed return based on ordinances/transfer	Held: Permanent injunction ordering return was proper; trial court judgment reinstated

State v. $281,420.00 in United States Currency, 312 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2010) (finder cannot retain lost property against true owner)
Strickland v. Medlen, 397 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. 2013) (recognizing pet dogs as a special form of personal property)
Tex. Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC, 363 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. 2012) (private property rights are fundamental; construction against forfeiture)
Kirby Lake Dev., Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Auth., 320 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2010) (laws construed to avoid forfeiture of property rights)
Bd. of Adjustment of San Antonio v. Wende, 92 S.W.3d 424 (Tex. 2002) (statutory and ordinance construction principles)
City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2003) (use plain meaning to discern legislative intent)
Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2001) (consider statute or ordinance as a whole)
Sheppard v. Avery, 34 S.W. 440 (Tex. 1896) (principle that forfeitures are not favored)