Replevin-Lost Dog

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: Leola Voegtline v. Clarion Bannach

Case No.: 2023AP002022

Officials: White, C.J.

Focus: Replevin-Lost Dog

Clarion Bannach appeals from the judgment in replevin that returned possession of a dog to Leola Voegtline, who filed a small claims action for replevin. The circuit court ruled in favor of Voegtline based on the photographs presented showing similar markings, the credible testimony about Marley’s disappearance and subsequent sightings, and the proximity of the locations where Marley was lost and the dog was found. The court found Voegtline’s testimony about her prolonged and documented efforts to find Marley particularly compelling, concluding that Voegtline did not abandon her dog and that the dog’s poor condition was due to being lost. Bannach argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s finding that the dog Bannach found was the dog that Voegtline owned and lost; therefore, he asserts that the judgment in replevin was erroneous. The appellate court reviewed the circuit court’s findings and concluded they were not clearly erroneous. It held that the evidence supported the conclusion that Bannach was wrongfully detaining Voegtline’s property (Marley) at the time the replevin action was filed. Bannach’s new legal arguments regarding the loss of ownership rights due to procedural issues with animal control were dismissed because they were not raised in the lower court. Consequently, the appeals court affirmed the decision to return Marley to Voegtline, highlighting the ample evidence supporting the circuit court’s determinations about ownership and identification.

Affirmed.

Decided 04/09/24 

Full Text