Hornishes to appeal ruling finding them liable for kennel fees

The Hartford Superior Court ruled last week that Annie and Neil Hornish would be held liable for all kenneling costs in relation to their dog, Dexter, who was involved in the mauling death of 95-year-old Janet D’Aleo in 2019. Despite the ruling, Annie Hornish has already announced her intent to appeal the ruling.

“We disagree with the ruling and will be appealing the decision,” Hornish said. “The lower court judge erred here, and we hope that the Appellate Court will rule with attention to the plain language understanding of the law, guided by the principle of fairness.”

This marks the second time in the Hornishes’ protracted legal battle with the Town of Suffield that the Hartford Superior Court has deemed the Hornishes’ liable for the costs associated with kenneling the dog until the courts settle their legal battle. The Hornishes paid approximately two years’ worth of kenneling costs, amounting to $42,000, before they decided to stop paying in January 2022. The Town has covered the costs thenceforth, having paid upwards of $75,321.

According to court documents, the Hornishes’ legal argument was predicated on three points; that the original ruling on financial liability was wrong, that the Town waived its right to seek recompensation upon their voluntary payment of boarding fees, and that existing state statutes ( CT Gen Stat 22-333 and CT Gen Stat 22-358 ) do not provide a legal basis upon which they’re obliged to pay.

Judge Charles Reed argued in his motion for summary judgment that the prior decision made by Judge James Sicilian, the judge who first ruled that the Hornishes should be held liable, “was decided correctly and does not require any different result… the court agrees with and adopts the entirety of Judge Sicilian’s analysis, reasoning and result.”

Furthermore, Reed found the Hornishes’ claim that the Town waived its right for recompensation upon voluntary payment of the boarding costs to be faulty. He cited case law ascertaining that in order for a right to be waived, it must be done so with knowledge and intention by the party that is waiving their legal right.

“The Town’s payments in no manner amount to a waiver especially where, as here, the need for Town to cover the dog’s boarding costs was the result of the plaintiffs’ own decision to stop paying the boarding facility,” read the judgment. “The requirements for a successful waiver argument have not been met and the court rejects the plaintiffs’ argument.”

Lastly, Reed asserted that the applicable state statutes, “clearly allows a municipality to recover boarding costs of an animal impounded.” Reed asserted that, “the remedy being sought is entirely consistent with the underlying legislative scheme.”

The Hornishes have long argued that the state statutes in question don’t oblige them to pay, stating that the only three situations defined under the law that necessitate an owner’s payment are for ten-day rabies quarantines, when owners defy an impoundment order, and when roaming animals picked up by a town kennel aren’t redeemed by their owners within 24 hours. Hornish also argued that the requirement of owners to pay kenneling fees throughout an appeals process unfairly biases cases such as hers in the direction of municipalities.

“If owners had to pay for boarding during challenges on kill orders, it would be all too easy for an unscrupulous government with deep pockets, limitless really, to abuse their power by delaying and delaying until owners are financially incapable of affording such a challenge,” said Hornish.

The statutes’ openness to interpretation regarding the exact circumstances of the Hornishes’ situation was acknowledged by Reed himself.

“The text of 22-333 does not create an explicit right of action,” read Reed’s judgment. “Therefore, the Town has the burden of establishing that the legislature intended to provide an implied cause of action.”

Despite the Hornishes’ arguments, and the ambiguity of state statutes in relation to the case, the Court found, for a second time, the Town’s argument towards repayment to be more compelling than that of the Hornishes’.

“This court is of the view that Judge Sicilian’s ruling is dispositive and that the counterclaim is properly grounded in a statutory basis for the recovery sought by the Town,” concluded Reed’s judgment.

The Town of Suffield did not reply to Inside Investigator ’s request for comment on the judgment.

The post Hornishes to appeal ruling finding them liable for kennel fees appeared first on Connecticut Inside Investigator .