Background
Alexander Gaynor and Laura Gilman adopted Buzz, a male chihuahua mix, while they were in a romantic relationship. They shared the acquisition and care expenses and jointly cared for the dog. After ending their relationship in June 2022, they continued exchanging Buzz on agreed dates for approximately eighteen months.
In October 2023, Gilman unilaterally stopped allowing Gaynor to see Buzz. Gaynor applied for a prejudgment remedy of replevin seeking possession of the dog. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the parties had equal possessory interests, concluded that Connecticut replevin law did not permit it to impose a shared-possession or visitation arrangement, and denied the application because Gaynor had not shown a superior right to immediate possession.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court affirmed. It held that the trial court properly concluded that it could not order shared possession of Buzz. The plain and unambiguous language of General Statutes § 52-515 authorizes recovery of a wrongfully detained chattel by a plaintiff with a right to immediate possession; it does not provide for a court-ordered arrangement under which the parties alternate possession. Moreover, Gaynor’s application sought to replevy the dog, not shared possession.
The court declined to review Gaynor’s argument that the trial court improperly required him to prove a possessory interest superior to Gilman’s. Gaynor had prompted that approach by identifying comparative possessory rights as relevant in his prehearing memorandum, presenting evidence intended to establish that his interest was superior, and arguing through counsel that he had established superiority. Having induced the trial court to analyze the issue that way, he could not challenge that analysis on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Connecticut’s replevin statute does not authorize courts to create shared-possession or visitation schedules for personal property, including dogs.
- A prejudgment replevin applicant must establish probable cause as to a property interest, a right to immediate possession, and wrongful detention of the chattel.
- A litigant who invites the trial court to apply a particular legal framework cannot reverse position and obtain appellate review of the resulting alleged error.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Connecticut law treats dogs as personal property in replevin proceedings, not as children subject to custody or visitation orders. Courts therefore cannot use § 52-515 to fashion an interim sharing arrangement, even when both former partners have cared for and remain attached to the animal.
The opinion also illustrates the appellate consequences of invited error: counsel’s framing of the issues before the trial court can foreclose a different theory on appeal.