216.696.8700

Ohio Appeals Court Upholds Denial of Replevin Claim Over Disputed Cat Ownership

October 10, 2025
NCAA

On September 25, 2025, the Eighth District Court of Appeals issued a decision in Graves v. Solorzano, affirming the Parma Municipal Court’s ruling in a dispute over the possession of a cat named Marvin. The case highlights how Ohio courts handle replevin actions involving companion animals and clarifies the role of abandonment under Ohio law.

Background

Plaintiff-appellant Chrisionna Graves and defendant-appellee Jillian Solorzano obtained Marvin, an orange tabby, while living together in California in 2022. The couple later relocated to Ohio, but their relationship ended in 2023. After the breakup, Marvin alternated between homes. By late 2024, Solorzano was exclusively in possession of Marvin and blocked Graves’s access.

Graves filed a replevin action seeking return of the cat. She argued she had primarily paid for Marvin’s care, while Solorzano contended that Marvin was gifted to her and she continued to contribute financially through pet health insurance and other expenses.

The trial court denied Graves’s motion for possession, finding that both parties had shared ownership and that Solorzano had not abandoned the animal.

Issues on Appeal

Graves raised two main arguments:

1. Replevin Claim: She asserted the municipal court erred in finding she failed to establish superior ownership rights to Marvin.

2. Abandonment: She argued that Solorzano had abandoned Marvin under R.C. 959.01, Ohio’s criminal animal abandonment statute, thereby forfeiting any ownership claim.

Court of Appeals Decision

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

1. Replevin Standard

The court reiterated that a replevin action requires proof of (1) ownership and (2) entitlement to possession. While Graves may have provided greater financial support, evidence showed both parties had cared for Marvin and maintained ownership interests. Because Graves could not prove exclusive ownership, she failed to establish a superior right to possession.

2. Abandonment Argument

The court declined to extend R.C. 959.01, typically applied in criminal prosecutions, to civil replevin disputes. Instead, it applied civil abandonment principles, which require “an absolute unequivocal relinquishment” of rights. Evidence showed Solorzano continued to visit and financially support Marvin, undermining any claim of abandonment.

Key Takeaways

  • Pets as Property: Ohio law treats pets as personal property in replevin actions. Ownership is determined by evidence of acquisition, financial support and intent, not emotional bonds.
  • Shared Ownership Matters: Even when one party contributes more to an animal’s care, courts may recognize shared ownership if both parties maintain involvement.
  • Abandonment Standard: The criminal abandonment statute under R.C. 959.01 does not govern civil replevin disputes. Courts apply a higher threshold, requiring clear and decisive acts showing intent to relinquish ownership.
  • Practical Implications: Parties disputing pet ownership should carefully document acquisition, veterinary records, insurance policies and financial contributions. Informal “co-ownership” arrangements can complicate replevin claims.

Broader Implications and Applications

This ruling carries implications not only for pet disputes but also for broader personal property conflicts in Ohio:

1. Other Companion Animals

  • The reasoning extends beyond cats to dogs and other pets. Courts will analyze evidence of ownership, financial contributions and continued care rather than awarding possession based on who provided more support.
  • Parties who informally share responsibility for animals should expect courts to reject “all or nothing” claims unless there is clear proof of exclusive ownership.

2. Property in Cohabitation Disputes

  • The case is a reminder that when romantic partners or roommates acquire property together, whether a pet, furniture or electronics, informal arrangements may create joint ownership. Later disputes can be difficult to resolve absent clear title, receipts or written agreements.

3. Limits of Criminal Statutes in Civil Contexts

  • The decision underscores that Ohio courts will not import criminal abandonment standards into civil replevin actions. Litigants cannot use R.C. 959.01 as a shortcut to extinguish another party’s ownership interest.

4. Evidence Standards in Replevin

  • Courts require competent, credible evidence of sole ownership before ordering possession. Text messages, receipts, insurance records, and testimony can all weigh into the analysis. This reinforces the evidentiary burden plaintiffs face in property disputes.

5. Practical Lessons for Clients

  • Clients should be advised to formalize ownership of high-value or emotionally significant property, whether pets, vehicles or jointly purchased items, at the time of acquisition.
  • Clear documentation can avoid the costs and uncertainties of litigation, particularly when property is acquired during personal relationships.

Conclusion

Graves v. Solorzano underscores the difficulties courts face when romantic relationships end and disputes arise over companion animals. While Ohio recognizes pets as property, evidence of shared responsibility may prevent one party from proving exclusive rights. The decision also limits reliance on animal abandonment statutes in civil disputes and reinforces the broader principle that informal, undocumented arrangements can complicate ownership claims across many types of personal property.

Contact

If you have questions about this decision or other replevin related actions, please reach out to KJK Litigation attorney Jeffrey R. Vaisa (JRV@kjk.com).