Patterson v. Rough Road Rescue, Inc.
529 S.W.3d 887
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Jamie Patterson adopted a dog ("Mack") from Rough Road Rescue after signing an "Animal Adoption Contract and Spay/Neuter Agreement" and paying fees; she took possession on January 24, 2015.
- The written contract required neutering, listed other care obligations, included a handwritten fence stipulation, and a clause stating noncompliance "may" void the contract and "could" authorize Rough Road Rescue to retake the animal.
- Mack escaped several times; Patterson had local citations for running-at-large. After a final escape, Mack was returned to Rough Road Rescue, which refused to return him to Patterson.
- Patterson sued for replevin and conversion seeking return of Mack; defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract and asserted a right to repossess under the adoption agreement.
- The trial court granted replevin, concluding Patterson owned Mack (the court had applied the UCC), that she satisfied contract obligations, and ordered Mack returned; defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the UCC govern the adoption (i.e., is the dog a "good")? | Patterson relied on trial court's UCC analysis showing title transferred at signing. | Rough Road Rescue argued the UCC doesn't apply because there was no "sale" or merchant-seller relationship. | Court affirmed outcome without relying on UCC; resolution of title did not require UCC analysis. |
| Did the adoption contract reserve a continuing repossession/reversionary interest to Rough Road Rescue? | Patterson: contract conveyed ownership; repossession clause is ambiguous and does not divest ownership. | Rough Road Rescue: contract conditioned ownership on compliance and authorized repossession for breaches. | Court held contract ambiguous and construed against drafters; adoption granted Patterson ownership; no enduring reversionary interest. |
| Did Patterson breach the contract (fence requirement and running-at-large) justifying repossession? | Patterson: she neutered Mack, provided shots, and complied with the fence stipulation (moved to a home with a fenced yard by the deadline); absconding does not mean ongoing breach. | Rough Road Rescue: Patterson failed to maintain fence and violated ordinances, breaching contract. | Court found Patterson satisfied obligations (fence provided by deadline; no ongoing fence duty in contract) and her efforts were reasonable despite escapes. |
| Was the supersedeas bond of $2,500 excessive? | (Implied) Patterson defended bond as proper to secure compliance with judgment. | Defendants argued $2,500 was grossly excessive and sought reduction. | Court denied reduction and rejected the bond challenge (not dispositive to result). |
Key Cases Cited
- Herron v. Barnard, 390 S.W.3d 901 (Mo. App. W.D.) (defines replevin elements and burden of proof)
- Triarch Indus., Inc. v. Crabtree, 158 S.W.3d 772 (Mo. banc) (cardinal rule: ascertain parties' intent in contract interpretation)
- Belton Chopper 58, LLC v. North Cass Dev., LLC, 496 S.W.3d 529 (Mo. App. W.D.) (appellate de novo review of contract interpretation; affirm if result correct)
- Rutherford v. Davis, 458 S.W.3d 456 (Mo. App. E.D.) (court may affirm on any theory supported by record)
- Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (U.S. 1972) (discusses replevin and possessory remedies)