## Facts

- Marcia Graham owned a black Pomeranian, Harlee, who escaped from her Spokane County home on July 17, 2007.
- Graham promptly contacted both the county shelter (SCRAPS) and the City of Spokane shelter (SpokAnimal C.A.R.E.) and posted a lost-dog notice.
- A finder, Jolee Wilke, brought Harlee to SpokAnimal on July 29, 2007.
- The location where Harlee was found was disputed: Wilke indicated Spokane County; SpokAnimal staff recorded the City of Spokane side of a boundary street.
- SpokAnimal held Harlee for 72 hours and adopted him to James Notti on August 1, 2007.
- Graham later learned Harlee had been taken to SpokAnimal, demanded return from Notti, and sued for replevin after Notti refused.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Notti, ruling his adoption gave him superior rights; Graham appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether disputed facts about where the dog was found created a genuine issue as to whether the city shelter had authority to impound and dispose of the dog.
2. Whether, as a matter of law, adoption from the shelter conveyed superior title or possessory rights to Notti over the original owner’s claim.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper given unresolved questions about the shelter’s jurisdiction and the validity of any title conveyed.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Notti and remanded for trial.
- The court held that the shelter’s authority to dispose of the dog depended on whether Harlee was found within the City of Spokane or in Spokane County.
- Because the record contained conflicting evidence on that jurisdictional fact, material issues remained and could not be resolved on summary judgment.
- The court applied de novo review, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to Graham as the nonmoving party.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, courts must deny relief when genuine issues of material fact remain, and must view disputed evidence in favor of the nonmoving party.
- A public or contracted animal-control agency’s ability to transfer ownership interests in a lost animal depends on the legal authority conferred on that agency, including jurisdictional limits.
- When an agency’s authority to impound and dispose of property is fact-dependent, the validity and quality of title transferred to an adopter cannot be determined as a matter of law without resolving those facts at trial.

## Conclusion

The court required a trial because conflicting evidence about where the dog was found created material disputes about the city shelter’s jurisdiction and authority to adopt out the dog, leaving unresolved whether the adopter could claim superior title against the original owner.


Graham v. Notti, 196 P.3d 1070 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008)