A recent ruling by the Connecticut Appellate Court addressed a dog custody dispute between two former partners, Alexander Gaynor and Laura Gilman. The court's decision, released on July 21, 2026, affirmed the trial court's denial of Gaynor's request for a prejudgment remedy of replevin concerning their dog, Buzz. This case highlights the complexities of pet custody disputes following relationship breakdowns and clarifies the legal standards for replevin actions in Connecticut.
The case began when Gaynor and Gilman, who were in a romantic relationship from 2014 to 2022, adopted Buzz, a male chihuahua mix, during their time together. After their breakup in June 2022, the couple initially agreed to share custody of Buzz, exchanging the dog on mutually agreed dates. However, in October 2023, Gilman unilaterally decided to deny Gaynor access to Buzz, prompting Gaynor to seek legal action.
On November 22, 2023, Gaynor filed an application for a prejudgment remedy to replevy Buzz, asserting his right to possess the dog. The trial court, presided over by Judge Vizcarrondo, held an evidentiary hearing in July 2024, where both parties presented their claims regarding their possessory interests in Buzz.
The court found that both Gaynor and Gilman had shared responsibilities and affection for Buzz during their relationship. However, the legal question at the heart of the case was whether Gaynor could prove that his possessory interest in Buzz was superior to Gilman's. The court ultimately ruled that it could not grant shared possession of the dog because the law does not provide for such an arrangement in replevin actions.
The Connecticut Appellate Court, consisting of Judges Elgo, Suarez, and Norcott, upheld the trial court's decision. The court stated, "The plain and unambiguous language of the statute (§ 52-515) that governs replevin proceedings in Connecticut does not provide for shared possession of a chattel." This ruling emphasized that Gaynor's claim for replevin was based on the need to establish a superior possessory interest, which he failed to do.
The court explained that Gaynor's inability to demonstrate a superior claim was critical to his application. It noted that both parties had equal possessory rights over Buzz and that Gaynor had not shown that he had a right to immediate possession. The court concluded that, under Connecticut law, a replevin action requires a determination of which party has the superior right to possession, and since both parties had equal rights, Gaynor's claim could not succeed.
This ruling has significant implications for similar cases involving pet custody disputes. It clarifies that, under Connecticut law, shared possession of a pet is not an option in replevin actions, which focus on determining who has the superior right to possession. This decision may influence how future cases involving pet custody are handled, particularly in the context of relationship breakdowns.
Looking ahead, Gaynor has the option to appeal the ruling to a higher court if he chooses. Additionally, he has initiated a separate civil action against Gilman, asserting claims for breach of contract, conversion, civil theft, and negligent infliction of emotional distress related to the custody of Buzz. This related case is currently pending in the Superior Court, and the outcome may further shape the legal landscape surrounding pet custody disputes in Connecticut.
As the legal framework surrounding pet custody continues to evolve, this case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in replevin actions and the importance of establishing clear possessory rights in disputes over beloved pets.