Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
NOTICE
DECISION
DATED AND FILED                                                   This opinion is subject to further editing.   If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
April 17, 2012
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Diane M. Fremgen                                                                                                     petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals                                                                                            Court of Appeals.   See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
                                                                                                                     and RULE 809.62.
                                                                                                                     Cir. Ct. No.   2011SC2656
Appeal No.                                                        2011AP2938-FT
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                                                   IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III
SANDY S. PEEBLES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
V.
LAURA S. ARNOLD,
DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Outagamie County:
DEE R. DYER, Judge.   Affirmed.




No.   2011AP2938-FT
¶1                                                                                                 HOOVER, P.J.1    Sandy Peebles2  appeals an  order  dismissing her
small claims action and awarding ownership of a dog to Laura Arnold.   On appeal,
Peebles argues the evidence shows she is the dog’s rightful owner.   We affirm.
¶2                                                                                                 On August 25, 2011, Peebles brought a small claims action against
Arnold, seeking the return of Lexi, a dog that had been living with Arnold since
her  brother,  Lance  Handrich,  died  in  June                                                    2011.    Peebles  testified  she  and
Handrich dated on and off for eight of the past twelve years, and they purchased
Lexi in September 2007.   Lexi’s registration certificate of pedigree lists Handrich
and Peebles as Lexi’s owners.   Although Handrich always maintained a separate
residence,  Peebles  explained  that  when  they  were  dating,  Handrich  and  Lexi
would stay with Peebles at her residence.   Peebles conceded Handrich paid for
Lexi and her care and, as of January 2011, Lexi was living with Handrich at his
residence.   On June 25, 2011, Handrich unexpectedly died.   Following Handrich’s
death, Lexi resided with Arnold.   Peebles did not insist on possession of Lexi at
that time because she “was trying to not ruffle any feathers[.]”
¶3                                                                                                 Arnold testified that, before Handrich’s death, she and her family
would help Handrich care for Lexi.    Specifically, they would routinely go to
Handrich’s apartment to care for Lexi when he was working late.    Following
Handrich’s death, Arnold took Lexi and has cared for her ever since.   According to
Arnold, Peebles had been over to her house several times since Handrich’s death
and never asked about Lexi.   Arnold explained that on August 18, 2011, Peebles
1  This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT.  § 752.31(2).   This is an
expedited appeal under WIS. STAT. RULE 809.17.   All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to
the 2009-10 version unless otherwise noted.
2  Peebles appeared pro se in the circuit court.  She is represented by counsel on appeal.
2




No.   2011AP2938-FT
came to her with a police officer and demanded Lexi.   At that time, Arnold refused
to give Lexi to Peebles.   Arnold opined that she was Lexi’s rightful owner because
she had been caring for Lexi, and Peebles had not shown any interest in Lexi until
months after her brother’s death.
¶4                                                                                      The court advised Peebles that in a return of property case, she bore
the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she owned Lexi.
The court found the only evidence indicating she owned the dog was the pedigree
registration  certificate.    The  court determined the  remaining evidence showed
Handrich owned Lexi.   Specifically, the court found Lexi was not shared between
Handrich and Peebles because Handrich always kept Lexi with him and paid for
her and her care.   The court also found that whenever it was necessary to have
someone besides Handrich care for Lexi, Handrich’s family cared for the dog.
The court concluded that Peebles did not meet her burden of proving she had any
ownership interest in Lexi.   The court dismissed Peebles’ small claims action.
¶5                                                                                      In  a  return  of  property  action,  i.e.,  a  replevin,  Peebles,  as  the
plaintiff, bears the burden of proving ownership.   See WIS. STAT. § 810.02; see
also First Nat’l Bank of Glendale v. Sheriff of Milwaukee Cnty., 34 Wis. 2d 535,
538, 149 N.W.2d 548 (1967).   On appeal, Peebles first argues the circuit court
erred by ignoring the pedigree registration certificate.   She asserts she is Lexi’s
owner because the certificate lists her as a co-owner.   In support, Peebles offers a
single quotation from Duncan v. Ehrhard, 158 Wis. 2d 252, 260, 461 N.W.2d 822
(Ct. App. 1990):   “In common usage, ‘owner’ is often equated to title-ownership.”
(Citation omitted.)
¶6                                                                                      Arnold responds that, to the extent Peebles is making a claim for
“title-ownership,” her argument is inapposite.   She points out that, in context, the
3




No.   2011AP2938-FT
Duncan quotation discusses motor vehicle ownership.    Arnold contends that a
pedigree registration certificate is not the same as a motor vehicle certificate of
title because a pedigree certificate only establishes a canine’s bloodline and has
little to do with ownership.   Arnold also asserts that dogs “are not titleable objects
of property.”
¶7                                                                                          Peebles  did  not  file  a  reply  in  response  to  Arnold’s  arguments.
Additionally, other than the single quotation from the Duncan case, Peebles has
offered no legal authority or argument in support of her assertion that a pedigree
registration certificate is comparable to a motor vehicle certificate of title.   We will
not address it.   See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct.
App. 1992) (we need not consider undeveloped arguments).
¶8                                                                                          Peebles also contends that, in addition to the pedigree certificate,
other evidence shows she is Lexi’s owner.   Specifically, Peebles asserts the record
shows she and Handrich picked up Lexi when the dog was purchased, Lexi lived
with Handrich and her, and she helped raise Lexi and hunted with her.
¶9                                                                                          We will uphold a circuit court’s factual findings unless they are
clearly erroneous.   WIS. STAT. § 805.17(2).                                                “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous
when it is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.”
Phelps v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis., Inc., 2009 WI 74, ¶39, 319 Wis. 2d 1, 768
N.W.2d  615  (citation  omitted).     Further,  credibility  determinations  and  the
weighing of evidence are in the province of the circuit court.   Johnson v. Miller,
157 Wis. 2d 482, 487, 459 N.W.2d 886 (Ct. App. 1990).
¶10    Here, the circuit court found Peebles failed to meet her burden of
proving she had an ownership interest in Lexi.   The court reasoned that the only
piece  of  evidence  showing Peebles  owned  Lexi was  the  pedigree  registration
4




No.   2011AP2938-FT
certificate.    It  found  the  remaining  evidence  showed  Handrich,  and  then  his
family, cared for and owned Lexi.   Specifically, it observed that Handrich always
kept Lexi with him, he paid for Lexi and her care, and Handrich’s family cared for
Lexi when Handrich could not.   The court’s factual determinations are supported
by the record, and therefore, not clearly erroneous.   See Phelps, 319 Wis. 2d 1,
¶39.
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
                                                                                         This  opinion  will  not  be  published.     See  WIS.  STAT.  RULE
809.23(1)                                                                                (b)4.
5

Download 2011ap002938-ft.pdf

Wisconsin Law