HARRISBURG – Judges from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled that a Washington County court was correct when it found that an animal humane group was entitled to more than $1.1 million in reimbursed costs under the Costs of Care of Seized Animals Act, for the expenses it incurred when it secured treatment for more than 200 animals rescued from a hoarding situation.
Superior Court judges John T. Bender, Mary Jane Bowes and Dan Pellegrini ruled on March 9 to affirm a decision in favor of plaintiff Washington Area Humane Society, and against defendant Christie Dee Harr.
Bender authored the Court’s opinion in this matter.
“On Oct. 30, 2019, 206 animals were seized by…WAHS from appellant….appellant is also the director of an organization entitled, ‘Animal Orphans Animal Rescue and Pet Sanctuary’…The animals seized were 182 cats, three dogs, 18 chickens and two mice from two properties, a residence in Monessen in Westmoreland County and a church building in Donora, Washington County. WAHS’s Officer Miranda Coombs testified about the seizure of the animals on that day. Ms. Combs was present, but was not the officer in charge, as that person was Glen Thompson, who died unexpectedly prior to the hearing on WAHS’s petition for costs under the CCSAA. After previous intervention efforts failed, the WAHS obtained search warrants for the two properties based primarily on averments concerning the dangerous condition of the Donora property, where the roof was in a great danger of collapsing,” Bender said.
“Present at each property was a Humane Officer from WAHS, police officers from the jurisdiction, and representatives from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). WAHS contacted…HSUS for assistance because of the large number of animals that were involved. Meetings occurred between the WAHS, HSUS and the Washington County District Attorney’s Office to coordinate the exhaustive effort that would be needed to seize a large number of animals. WAHS had contacted HSUS because that organization was known for handling large-scale animal hoarding situations. WAHS did not have sufficient shelter space for such a large number of animals, and it also could not financially provide veterinary care and housing.”
In the Donora residence, WAHS officers found over 50 cats, two mice, three dogs and eight chickens in horrific conditions, and summarily removed them from the premises. As the animals were removed, a Dr. Sampson, triaged each animal and noted the needed care. Each animal was processed, delineating where the animal had been located, and each animal was photographed.
Since there was such a large number of animals and…WAHS was physically unable to accommodate such a number…HSUS, in conjunction with…WAHS, located a facility in Delaware that could take all the cats. A tractor-trailer was used to transport them to the Delaware shelter, which charged $14 per day, per animal. The chickens went to a different facility in Pennsylvania.
“WAHS filed…the petition [seeking reimbursement of costs under the CCSAA] on May 7, 2020. This court, at the request of…WAHS, issued a rule to show cause, returnable on July 10, 2020, and ordered appellant to file an answer. Appellant filed a motion to continue the hearing on the petition due to a conflict with her schedule, and also asserted that the hearing should be stayed until…after the resolution of her pending criminal charges. Appellant did not file an answer to the petition,” Bender said.
“The court granted the motion to continue for a short period of time, but denied the motion to stay…appellant appealed and the Pennsylvania Superior Court quashed the appeal as interlocutory on Oct. 13, 2020. The hearing on the petition for reasonable costs of care was held on Feb. 5, 2021. Neither appellant nor her counsel appeared, without explanation. On Feb. 8, 2021, appellant filed a ‘Post-Hearing Brief and Objections to Judgment.”
On Feb. 9, 2021, the trial court entered judgment in favor of WAHS and against Harr in the amount of $1,113,765.33. Harr filed a timely notice of appeal, and she complied with the trial court’s order to file a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.
The trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on June 16, 2021. Therein, Harr stated a single issue for the Superior Court’s review: Whether the trial court…erred, exceeded its authority under the [CCSAA], and proceeded without jurisdiction due to the failure to include indispensable parties when it awarded judgment for costs and expenses incurred by third parties, who cared for animals mostly outside of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
“Before addressing appellant’s argument, we observe that she did not raise before the trial court her claim that an indispensable party (namely, HSUS) was not included in this litigation. Accordingly, appellant has not waived her jurisdictional challenge to the court’s failure to join HSUS by not raising it below. In any event, we conclude that her claim is meritless,” Bender said.
“[On appeal], appellant avers that HSUS was an indispensable party to the petition for costs under the CCSAA. In rejecting appellant’s argument, the trial court concluded that HSUS has no right related to the WAHS’s claim for reimbursement of the costs incurred in caring for the animals seized from appellant.”
Bender said that courtroom testimony supported the Court’s determination that WAHS and HSUS entered an MOU, by which they agreed that WAHS was solely responsible for recuperating from appellant the costs associated with caring for her seized animals,” and thus, “HSUS had no claim related to the petition seeking reimbursement for those costs…rather, WAHS alone was the proper agency to seek reimbursement under the CCSAA.”
“Moreover, appellant cites no legal support for her argument that WAHS, which is a Pennsylvania non-profit organization, could not seek reimbursement for costs paid to providers in other states. We also reject her contention that ‘HSUS cannot simply say the [MOU] assigned WAHS some rights to collect similar to a collection agency because the purported agreement was never submitted to the court.’ Appellant chose not to attend the hearing on the petition and, thus, she lodged no objection to the testimony concerning the agreement between WAHS and HSUS. She also did not preserve, in her Rule 1925(b) statement, any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the court’s decision that WAHS and HSUS had an agreement naming WAHS as the party responsible for the costs of care for appellant’s seized animals,” Bender concluded.
“Consequently, appellant cannot raise, for the first time on appeal, her claim that the testimony concerning the parameters of the MOU between WAHS and HSUS was insufficient to support the court’s decision. Finally, we recognize that the true crux of appellant’s issue appears to be a claim that it was illegal for HSUS to be involved in seizing her animals. However, appellant never argued before the trial court that WAHS should be denied funds under the CCSAA because HSUS’s involvement was unauthorized or illegal. Accordingly, this claim is waived. In sum, appellant has not demonstrated that HSUS was an indispensable party to WAHS’s petition under the CCSAA. Therefore, we affirm the court’s judgment against appellant in the amount of $1,113,765.33.”
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 336 WDA 2021
Washington County Court of Common Pleas case 2020-2270
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com