## Facts

- The City of Rolling Meadows cited Audrey Kyle for keeping a monkey, “Yondi,” in her home under a municipal ordinance barring certain animals “other than domesticated house pets.”
- Yondi had lived with Kyle since she was two days old and had resided with the Kyles in the city for about seven years.
- Ordinance § 4-28 prohibited keeping listed animals and “other animal normally wild, dangerous to human life or carnivorous in nature,” with an exception for “domesticated house pets,” and stated it was “no defense” that an owner “attempted to domesticate” a prohibited animal.
- At an evidentiary hearing, Kyle and her husband testified that Yondi was toilet trained, vaccinated, accustomed to living in the home, and sociable with people and other animals.
- The City offered no evidence defining “domesticated house pets.”
- The trial court found a violation, reasoning that a monkey is normally wild and dangerous and that the ordinance’s exception effectively applied only to cats and dogs; it ordered removal of the monkey and denied post-judgment motions.
- Kyle appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the ordinance’s phrase “other than domesticated house pets” modifies the entire category of normally wild/dangerous/carnivorous animals or only traditional pets like cats and dogs.
2. Whether an animal from a species “normally wild” may qualify as a “domesticated house pet” based on evidence of actual domestication.
3. How the “no defense” clause regarding “attempt[ing] to domesticate” affects application of the domesticated-house-pet exception.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment against Kyle.
- It held the exception for “domesticated house pets” applied to the full set of otherwise prohibited animals described in the ordinance.
- Applying the ordinary meaning of “domesticated,” the court concluded the evidence established Yondi was domesticated and kept as a house pet.
- The trial court erred by treating domestication as categorically impossible for a monkey and by finding a violation on that basis.

## Legal Principles

- Undefined terms in a municipal ordinance are construed according to their common and approved usage.
- A textual exception for “domesticated house pets” can apply to any animal that is, in fact, domesticated and kept as a house pet, even if the species is typically wild.
- Whether an animal is domesticated is determined from evidence about the particular animal’s behavior and circumstances, not solely from generalized assumptions about the species.
- A clause stating that “attempts” to domesticate are “no defense” does not bar reliance on an exception when the evidence shows the animal is actually domesticated.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that the ordinance’s domesticated-house-pet exception was not limited to cats and dogs and that uncontroverted evidence showed Kyle’s monkey was domesticated and kept as a house pet, requiring reversal of the ordinance-violation judgment.


City of Rolling Meadows v. Kyle, 494 N.E.2d 766 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)