HOUSTON – Man’s best friend isn’t considered a stock animal for the purposes of awarding attorney’s fees, a Texas appellate court recently opined.
Plaintiff Rita Palfreyman was awarded $900 in actual damages for the untimely deaths of two of her dogs while they were boarded at Dog Gone Good, the business of defendants Becky Gaconnet and Leslie Jones.
However, court records show the trial court denied Palfreyman the $7,000 in attorney’s fees she paid in pursing the case through trial.
Court records show the defendants had filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Palfreyman could not recover attorney’s fees under the Texas Civil Code because her dogs were not “stock.”
In her deposition, Palfreyman acknowledged that both of the deceased dogs were neutered, had not been used by Palfreyman to breed, show, or otherwise make money, were not for sale, and had no special economic value beyond the personal value to Palfreyman.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment, court records show.
On Sept. 27, the 14th Court of Appeals concluded the term “stock” does not apply to pet dogs, affirming the trial court’s judgment.
“Palfreyman … suggests that dogs are ‘stock’ synonymous with livestock, as they are often bred for sale and sold, sometimes at facilities known as ‘puppy farms’ and sometimes live and work on agricultural farms and ranches,” the opinion states. “Although these scenarios raise interesting issues, they do not describe the situation presented here.
“As Palfreyman acknowledged in her deposition testimony, her pet dogs were kept solely as companion animals. They were neutered, were not for sale, and did not work on a farm or ranch.”
Palfreyman is represented by attorney Savannah Robinson.
Appeals case No. 14-17-00472