## Facts

- Zane Kroupa adopted and trained a mixed-breed puppy as a hunting dog.
- In July 1994, the dog broke free from its collar, ran away, and became lost.
- Kroupa notified friends and local businesses and contacted the Addison County Humane Society about the missing dog.
- About two weeks later, Mary Morgan found the dog on a road in Addison and took it home.
- Morgan contacted the Humane Society, which advised her to keep the dog while efforts were made to locate the owner.
- Morgan posted notices in multiple public locations and arranged radio announcements describing the dog.
- For more than a year, Morgan fed, sheltered, and kept the dog as a household pet.
- In September 1995, Kroupa learned the dog was at a nearby house, went there, and attempted to retrieve it; he ultimately left with the dog after it jumped into his truck.
- Morgan filed a replevin action seeking return of the dog.

## Issues

1. Whether a good-faith finder of a lost dog who made diligent efforts to locate the owner and cared for the dog for over a year was entitled to possession against the original owner who reclaimed the dog after a lengthy delay.
2. Whether the trial court could award possession based on substantial compliance with Vermont’s lost property statute and equitable considerations despite technical deviations from statutory procedures.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the judgment awarding possession of the dog to Morgan.
- The Court held the trial court could treat Morgan’s actions as substantial compliance with the lost property statute and award possession accordingly.
- The Court concluded the trial court acted within its discretion in resolving the dispute based on the parties’ conduct and the equities.

## Legal Principles

- Dogs are classified as personal property, but their living, relational character permits a flexible application of property and equitable principles when determining possession.
- Under Vermont’s lost property framework, a finder’s good-faith, diligent efforts to locate the owner can constitute substantial compliance with statutory notice requirements when deviations are technical and do not defeat the statute’s purpose.
- In competing claims between an original owner and a finder, a court may weigh the finder’s diligence and long-term care against the owner’s delay in reclaiming the animal when determining the proper possessory remedy.
- Courts need not apply a child-custody-style “best interests” test to decide pet possession disputes; property principles informed by equitable considerations may control.
- Appellate review is deferential to the trial court’s factual findings and discretionary equitable judgment in awarding possession.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an award of a lost dog to the finder because her extensive, good-faith efforts to locate the owner and her year-long care of the animal amounted to substantial compliance with lost-property requirements, making it equitable to grant her possession despite the original owner’s prior ownership and delayed recovery.


Morgan v. Kroupa, 167 Vt. 99, 702 A.2d 630 (Vt. 1997)