Graham v. Notti
Washington Court of Appeals
196 P.3d 1070 (2008)
- Written by Douglas Halasz, JD
Facts
Marcia Graham (plaintiff) owned a dog named Harlee. Harlee escaped from Graham’s home located in Spokane County. Another Spokane-County resident brought Harlee to the city of Spokane’s animal shelter, SpokAnimal C.A.R.E. (SpokAnimal). After waiting the required 72 hours, SpokAnimal permitted James Notti (defendant) to adopt Harlee. Thereafter, Graham learned that SpokAnimal adopted Harlee out to Notti. Graham tried to get Harlee back from Notti, but Notti refused. Accordingly, Graham sued Notti for replevin. Notti moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. On appeal, Graham argued that SpokAnimal did not obtain voidable title to Harlee under Washington’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) because the Grahams did not transfer Harlee through a purchase transaction or entrustment. Graham further contended that Notti was not entitled to common-law protections afforded to bona-fide purchasers. Notti argued, among other things, that SpokAnimal had at least voidable title to Harlee and, therefore, conveyed good title to him. Notti further argued that an animal shelter can transfer good title to a dog held for 72 hours and that an animal shelter’s possessory interest in a dog is superior to a private citizen’s ownership interest.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sweeney, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
