S.P.A. Member Personally Sued for Rescuing Stray Dog!
The appeal will be argued to a panel of 3 judges of the appellate court on November 10th, 2008.
If S.P.A. loses this case, no one may be able to help stray animals without running the risk of being sued, even if acting on behalf of a non-profit organization. Please, if you are involved with rescue, take the time to read this. It is a very important court case.
For Immediate Release...
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING LEGAL BRIEF which is now public record! IT IS VERY INTERESTING AND COULD AFFECT EVERYONE IN RESCUE, ESPECIALLY IN OHIO!
~This hearing will be heard in the 6th District Court of Appeals~ Its outcome will affect ALL animal rescuers in Ohio and most likely all rescuers across the U.S! If SPA does not win the appeal, it may be necessary to take the case to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The outcome will set precedence for those who rescue stray dogs and cats!
TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY:
Terry McGrady, an S.P.A. member, was sued for rescuing a stray dog and ordered to pay $500 to the man claiming to have lost the dog. This dog had been missing one week before he began to look for him and the dog was not licensed to him at that time.
Again, S.P.A. is appealing this decision because they feel they made every effort to locate the owner. This man who claimed that the dog got away from him A WEEK BEFORE called the number listed in the Found Ad in the local paper and accused McGrady of stealing his dog, and said that he needed to give him back.
When McGrady asked why he hadn't looked earlier for the dog he was missing, he said he was too busy farming to look for the dog earlier in the week. He said he was "trying the dog out" and that it actually belonged to a guy he worked with.
Mr. Terry Lodge, a top notch Toledo attorney (and an animal advocate) felt that Terry McGrady should appeal the ruling that Judge Adams made in the small, village court of Woodville, Ohio. He prepared the attached brief and will appeal this case soon before 6th District Court of Appeals.
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT ~ PLEASE READ!
Two volunteer attorneys have put in nearly half a working week for free, and it is likely that attorney Lodge will be required to donate 10 to 15 more hours of his time without compensation. And if SPA does not win the appeal, it may be necessary to take the case to the Ohio Supreme Court. Even with donated time, the expense of litigation can be significant. We hope that rescue-minded people who learn of this story will help SPA cover the expenses of this important lawsuit.
If you care to donate to S.P.A.'s Legal Fund, donations can be made online at: www.spaohio.org.
Please designate that you wish your donation be used towards S.P.A.'s legal fees.
Or, you can mail a donation to:
S.P.A. Legal Fund
P.O. Box 1047
Fremont, Ohio 43420
THE FACTS
The dog was found on McGrady's front porch early one Saturday morning. Terry McGrady took the dog to the neighbors across the road to inquire if they knew whose dog it was, and the neighbors said they had never seen the dog before. The dog had no ID of any sort. So, McGrady's took the dog to their vets to be boarded.
S.P.A. notified the dog pound on the day that the dog was found, placed a FOUND ad in the local paper first thing on Monday morning when the newspaper office opened, and checked for microchip etc.
The dog was boarded at S.P.A.'s vet's office Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. No one had advertised the dog as missing in the local paper. No one had visited the pound looking for the dog (until Friday afternoon), no one had placed a LOST DOG ad in the paper, no one had checked with the neighbors.
S.P.A. adopted the dog to a loving home on the eighth day after they had rescued the dog.
Had S.P.A. taken the dog to the dog pound, the dog could have been euthanized or adopted out on the 3rd day (Tuesday ).
This man who claimed the dog was his hired an attorney, who basically told him he would not be able to file criminal charges against McGrady, and suggested that instead he take McGrady to small claims court. Ms. Polly Grunfeld Sack dealt with this attorney and wrote an incredible letter explaining (defending) the rescue of this dog!
Thanks a million, Polly!!!
Despite being asked before the suit had been filed to provide proof of ownership by Grunfeld-Sack (Wagner said he was only trying the dog out at the time), he produced for the very first time at the actual trial of the case a bill of sale, a dog license, and a photo of the dog with the guy at work's daughter. The judge ruled in Wagner's favor, and it was obvious that day in the small town of Woodville's court that the judge sided with Wagner all the way. He really wasn't interested in what McGrady had to say.
McGrady was ordered to pay $500 for lost breeding fees (the guy said he planned on studding this male, unneutered lab out). No AKC papers were presented. The entire hearing was unbelievable.
MOST IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS**** This case will set a precedent, affecting all those wishing to help an animal in need. More specifically, it would mean that a rescuer could not help a stray cat or dog without facing the potential of being sued. There are currently no laws prohibiting rescuers from helping stray dogs and cats.
There are currently no state laws in Ohio which define the rights and responsibilities of organizations or individuals who help stray animals in need. THIS IS TRUE IN MOST STATES.
If a rescue group or an individual is willing to help a stray dog or cat in need they should be able to help it? Why should a stray animal have to go to a county shelter, where it can be euthanized, when a responsible, non-profit animal rescue is willing to try to find the owner and if the owner is not able to be found, place the animal with a loving family?
The other point to consider is that Terry McGrady was acting on behalf of SPA, a non-profit organization. He should not be able to be personally sued for "stealing" a dog. But Judge Adams did not agree, obviously, when he ordered Mr. McGrady to pay Mr. Wagner $500.
AGAIN, PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING LEGAL BRIEF!
This decision will affect all rescuers! Cross Post to all of your contacts...
This case could set a precedent regarding rescuers/individuals helping stray cats and dogs everywhere!
If a rescue group or an individual is willing to help a stray dog or cat in need, why should it have to go to a county shelter, where it can be euthanized, when an interested party is willing to try to find the owner and if the owner is not able to be found, place the animal with a loving family?
Any comments regarding this incident can be sent to: spaohio@sbcglobal.net.
Please cc the attorney representing this case: Terry Lodge, Esq. at: tjlodge50@yahoo.com.
READ THE FOLLOWING LEGAL BRIEF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF SANDUSKY COUNTY, OHIO
Sixth Appellate District
Dennis Wagner,
Appellee,
-vs-
Terry McGrady,
Appellant.
Case No. CA S-08-010
Trial Ct. No. CIV 0700292
BRIEF OF TERRY MCGRADY, APPELLANT
Terry J. Lodge (0029271)
316 N. Michigan St., Ste. 520
Toledo, OH 43604
(419) 255-7552
Fax (419) 255-8582
tjlodge50@yahoo.com
Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
Terry McGrady
-ii-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Statement of Assignments of Error Presented for Review. . . . . . iv
Statement of Issues Presented for Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . .v
Statement of the Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Assignment of Error No. 1: A volunteer animal rescuer has no duty to learn the identify of a putative owner of a dog who makes no immediate attempt to reclaim his lost animal. . . . . . . . .4
Assignment of Error No. 2: Appellant was not a proper Defendant because he was an unpaid volunteer working for a nonprofit humanitarian agency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Assignment of Error No. 3: There was no legal basis for the damage award of $500.00. . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Assignment of Error No. 4: The trial court’s ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence. . . . 9
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Certificate of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Appendix
"Small Claim Judgment Entry," February 6, 2008
-iii-
LE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Akro-Plastics v. Drake Industries (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 221, 685 N.E.2d 246. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
McDonald v. Ohio State Univ. Veterinary Hosp. (1994), 67 Ohio Misc.2d 40, 644 N.E.2d 750. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Oberschlake v. Veterinary Assoc. Animal Hosp. (2003), 151 Ohio App.3d 741, 2003-Ohio-917. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Ramey v. Collins (June 5, 2000), Scioto App. No. 99CA2665, 2000 WL 776932. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
State v. York (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 226. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Zageris v. Whitehall (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 178, 594 N.E.2d 129. . 6
Statutes
O.R.C. § 955.01. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
O.R.C. § 955.03. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5, 8
O.R.C. § 955.04. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
O.R.C. § 1717.13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6
O.R.C. § 2305.38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7
Rules
Appellate Rule 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
-iv-
SATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Assignment of Error No. 1: A volunteer animal rescuer has no duty to learn the identify of a putative owner of a dog who makes no immediate attempt to reclaim his lost animal and is not liable for adoption of the dog to another home after reasonable efforts have been made
Error arises from the trial court’s failure to apply a statute which accords immunity to a humanitarian who intervenes in the case of an apparently neglected dog.
Assignment of Error No. 2: Appellant was not a proper Defendant because he was an unpaid volunteer working for a nonprofit humanitarian agency.
Error arises from the trial court’s failure to afford the protections of statutory immunity for unpaid volunteer members of a nonprofit organization
Assignment of Error No. 3: There was no legal basis for the damage award of $500.00
The trial court awarded damages for Plaintiff’s claimed loss of a house pet, a dog with no unique claim of bloodline or pedigree, which is contrary to Ohio law Assignment of Error No. 4: The trial court’s ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence The trial court erred in awarding judgment to the plaintiff below because he failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the dog he had lost was the same canine which strayed onto the property of defendant (Appellant)
-v-
SATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Issue #1: May a trial court hold a defendant liable for conversion when the personal property involved is a canine, the defendant intervenes as a humanitarian and adopts the dog out to a third party, and a statute confers immunity for such an intervention?
Related to Assignment of Error No. 1.
Issue #2: May an uncompensated volunteer for a nonprofit corporation be held liable for conversion when his acts were not negligent and were lawful and there is a statute which appears to excuse the volunteer from liability in such a circumstance?
Related to Assignment of Error No. 2.
Issue #3: May a court award $500.00 damages for the loss of a companion animal when pets have little cognizable market value and Ohio law does not recognize compensatory damages for loss of companionship of a pet?
Related to Assignment of Error No. 3.
Issue #4: Must a plaintiff claiming loss of a companion animal prove that the responding defendant actually possessed that animal during the time period covered by the complaint?
Related to Assignment of Error No. 4.
-1- STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In fall 2007, Appellee Dennis Wagner, plaintiff in the court below, brought a small claims civil lawsuit against Terry McGrady, Appellant, alleging that McGrady had wrongfully adopted out a dog which Wagner claimed was his. That matter was heard in January 2008 in Sandusky County Court #2 at Woodville. After taking testimony and exhibits, the judge took the matter under advisement and issued a decision on the merits in the form of a "Small Claim Judgment Entry" on February 6, 2008. In that ruling, the trial court granted judgment to Appellee Wagner for $500.00 and costs. Appellant McGrady timely appealed the judgment to this Court and it is now before the Court for review on the merits.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Appellant Terry McGrady is an unpaid volunteer member of the Society for the Protection of Animals, Inc. ("SPA"), a "501(c)(3)" nonprofit corporation in Ohio which since 1999 has provided animal rescue services. Made up of about ten (10) unpaid volunteers, SPA has been sheltering dogs and cats for the past nine years from dire circumstances and adopting them out to private owners as companion animals.
At about 4:30 a.m. on Saturday, October 13, 2007 a buzzer sounded at the front of Appellant McGrady’s home, which is in a rural township a few miles west of Fremont, Ohio. Minutes later, a large brown dog strode up to the front door of his house. McGrady had never seen the dog in the neighborhood before, and there was no collar nor identification tags, nor a dog license, on the dog. Transcript ("Tr.) 10.
Later that day, Appellant took the dog across the street from his -2- residence to a neighbor, Ralph Billow's, house and asked if Ralph had ever seen him in the neighborhood before. Ralph said he’d never seen the dog at any of the neighbors. Tr. 11.
Later that same morning, Appellant took the dog to a local veterinary office, the Fremont Animal Hospital, to be boarded. Tr. 11.
He also telephoned the Sandusky County Dog Pound that day and left a detailed message that if anyone contacted the Pound who was missing a big brown dog to be sure to call him (McGrady). Tr. 11. During the course of the next week, the dog pound did not contact McGrady of any possible owner showing up or having contacted the Pound.
Two days later, on Monday, McGrady placed a "found" classified advertisement in the Fremont daily newspaper, the News-Messenger. That "found" advertisement that ran in the News-Messenger at SPA’s expense on October 16 through 18, 2007, said: "Large dog found on C.R. 41. Call and describe 419-334-2773." Tr. 11; the three days’ advertisements were admitted as Exhibits 5, 6 and 7.
On Friday, October 19, 2007 - six (6) days after Appellant took in the stray dog - SPA had the dog administered all shots, given a heartworm test, and surgically neutered. Since there had been no response to the advertisement by anyone claiming ownership of the dog, SPA assumed full liability for the bill. Tr. 11. The boarding and vetting bill totaled $297.00. Tr. 16.
Friday afternoon, October 19, a family to which SPA had previously successfully adopted a dog agreed to adopt the dog. SPA collected its stand $75.00 adoption fee from the family, located in the Cleveland area, and the dog was delivered by another SPA volunteer to Cleveland on Saturday morning, October 20, 2007. Tr. 11. It was now seven (7) days since the dog had appeared at Appellant’s front -3- door.
Appellee Dennis Wagner telephoned McGrady that Saturday morning, October 20, stating he had been advised by someone at the dog pound that there had been an advertisement in the newspaper. Wagner told McGrady that he thought Appellant might have his dog. Wagner stated that he had possessed a chocolate Labrador retriever for about a week when it slipped its collar while tied down and ran away.
McGrady explained that SPA had boarded and vetted a brown lab or lab mix, placed the "found" ad, and waited nearly a week, but had just completed its adoption to a new home. Wagner explained that he had been "trying out" the retriever when it ran away. Tr. 11. Asked why he waited nearly a week to look for his dog, Wagner stated that he had been busy farming. Tr. 14.
After learning from McGrady that the dog was now adopted to a new home and would be an inside dog with an acre and a half fenced in yard to play with two other labs, Wagner told him, "Well, if it doesn’t work out I’d like to have the dog back." Tr. 12. It was never positively established that the dog taken in by McGrady was Wagner’s dog. Wagner called McGrady back on Sunday, October 21, 2007, at which point he angrily accused McGrady of "stealing" the dog and "hiding" it at the vet’s office.
Wagner claimed he intended to breed the lost dog. He produced no evidence of having paid anything to purchase the animal, nor any American Kennel Club or other register of the canine’s ancestry or unique breeding which would assist the trial court to establish a value for the loss of the potential puppies. Tr. 17.
On February 6, 2008, the Sandusky County Court #2 journalized a "Small Claim Judgment Entry" in this case, granting Appellee judgment -4- of $500.00 on his complaint. In its one-page opinion, the court made no recitation of findings of fact, nor did it elaborate on any interpretation of the plaintiff’s theory of recovery, but rendered this determination:
At time defendant adopted dog out, he knew the owner of dog was looking for his dog. Membership in SPA does not give immunity for sale or adopting animals that belong to others. It is from this order that Appellant Terry McGrady brings his appeal.
GUMENT[/b]
Assignment of Error No. 1: A volunteer animal rescuer has no duty to learn the identify of a putative owner of a dog who makes no immediate attempt to reclaim his lost animal and is not liable for adoption of the dog to another home after reasonable efforts have been made.
The trial court incorrectly held, by implication, that Terry McGrady owed a duty to investigate and discover the identity of the owner of the dog that came to his house. Under the facts and circumstances in the record, Dennis Wagner waited nearly one full week before he seriously searched for his lost dog. Wagner never offered to prove to Terry McGrady that the dog which SPA adopted the morning that Wagner called McGrady was actually his, nor to reimburse SPA’s considerable expense of boarding and vetting the animal.
Ohio law authorizes a volunteer who intervenes to rescue a stray canine to take possession of it and to make a "reasonable effort" to learn the owner’s identity. He did, and when none of his extensive efforts to locate the dog’s owner bore fruit, the organization for which he was serving, SPA, was consequently allowed by operation of -5- law to claim the lost dog as its propertyl, and to dispose of that property by adoption. Ohio Revised Code § 955.03 states, in part, that "[a]ny dog which has been registered under sections 955.01 and 955.04 of the Revised Code and any dog not required to be registered under such sections shall be considered as personal property. . . ." Moreover, O.R.C. § 1717.13 accords a right to persons volunteering to intercede on behalf of canines which appear to be neglected:
When, in order to protect any animal from neglect, it is necessary to take possession of it, any person may do so. . . .
In all cases the owner or custodian of such animal, if known to such person, immediately shall be notified by him of such action. If the owner or custodian is unknown to such person, and cannot with reasonable effort be ascertained by him, such animal shall be considered an estray and dealt with as such.
Appellant’s "reasonable effort" included McGrady’s consultation with a close-by neighbor, who professed no familiarity with the dog. McGrady then immediately contacted the governmentally-operated dog pound and left descriptive and contact information about the canine. Two days later, when the business offices of the local newspaper were open, McGrady, through SPA, placed a "found" classified advertisement in the paper and ran it for three (3) days.
Section 1717.13 provides defenses to an action in conversion by the true owner of an animal against a humanitarian who takes it into possession and who responds immediately to try to identify the owner.The first sentence of O.R.C. § 1717.13 provides a qualified immunity, which exempts a humanitarian's taking possession of an animal if, and only if, it can be shown at a post-seizure proceeding that the animal was, in fact, neglected at the time it was seized, and if the owner was promptly notified of the seizure.
State v. York (1997), 122 Ohio 1Subsection (B) states:
(B) A volunteer is not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property that arises from the actions or omissions of any of the officers, employees, trustees, or other volunteers of the charitable organization for which the volunteer performs services, unless either of the following applies: (1) With prior knowledge of an action or omission of a particular officer, employee, trustee, or other volunteer, the volunteer authorizes, approves, or otherwise actively participates in that action or omission. (2) After an action or omission of a particular officer, employee, trustee, or other volunteer, the volunteer, with full knowledge of that action or omission, ratifies it. -6- App.3d 226, 234, citing Zageris v. Whitehall (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 178, 594 N.E.2d 129.
Terry McGrady, acting on behalf of SPA, acted reasonably in trying to discover the identity of the dog’s owner, and should be accorded the immunity from liability allowed by O.R.C. § 1717.13. Accordingly, the trial court judgment should be reversed.
Assignment of Error No. 2: Appellant was not a proper Defendant because he was an unpaid volunteer working for a nonprofit humanitarian agency Appellant McGrady specifically objected at trial that, as an unpaid volunteer member of the Society for the Protection of Animals, he was not the property party at interest and should have been granted immunity from suit under O.R.C. § 2305.38. Tr. 5, 7. That statute says, pertinently, as follows:
(C) A volunteer is not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property that arises from the volunteer's actions or omissions in connection with any supervisory or corporate services that the volunteer performs for the charitable organization, unless either of the following applies: (1) An action or omission of the volunteer involves conduct as described in division (B)(1) or (2) of this section;1
(2) An action or omission of the volunteer constitutes willful or wanton misconduct or intentionally tortious conduct. (D) A volunteer is not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property that arises from the volunteer's actions or omissions in connection with any nonsupervisory or noncorporate services that the volunteer performs for the charitable organization, unless either of the -7- following applies:
(1) An action or omission of the volunteer involves conduct as described in division (B)(1) or (2) of this section; (2) An action or omission of the volunteer constitutes negligence, willful or wanton misconduct, or intentionally tortious conduct.
Inasmuch as Terry McGrady conducted himself prudently, made reasonable efforts to discover the identity of the lost dog’s owner, and was not negligently or willfully misconduct himself, he should be allowed to avail himself of the immunity accorded by O.R.C. § 2305.38. McGrady served at all times of which complaint was made as an uncompensated volunteer of the Society for the Protection of Animals. McGrady was not properly a party to the suit, and the trial court’s ruling that denied him immunity by statute must be reversed, and the case dismissed.
Assignment of Error No. 3: There was no legal basis for the damage award of $500.00
The trial court apparently picked an arbitrary figure of $500.00 as damages for Appellant’s supposed wrongful loss of his dog. Yet Appellant did not establish in the record what the price he supposedly paid was, and there was an issue over whether he had actually purchased the animal or was "trying it out." Tr. 13. Appellee, as plaintiff in the trial court, did not prove that the dog he lost was AKC-registered or had an established, unique bloodline such as would allow him to claim damages for lost breeding opportunities.
As previously observed, dogs are classified as "personal property" under Ohio law. O.R.C. § 955.03. Typically, damages for loss of personal property are limited to the difference between the property's fair market value before and immediately after the loss. Akro-Plastics v. Drake Industries (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 221, 226, -8- 685 N.E.2d 246.
Due to this standard, damages will seldom be awarded for the loss of a family pet, since pets have little or no market value. Oberschlake v. Veterinary Assoc. Animal Hosp. (2003), 151 Ohio App.3d 741, 743-44, 2003-Ohio-917, citing Ramey v. Collins (June 5, 2000), Scioto App. No. 99CA2665, 2000 WL 776932, at * 3. Too, there is no authority in Ohio law allowing damages awards for loss of companionship of a pet. Oberschlake, supra at 746.
The Ohio rule on valuing a unique, high-quality canine is found in McDonald v. Ohio State Univ. Veterinary Hosp. (1994), 67 Ohio Misc.2d 40, 644 N.E.2d 750. There, the Court of Claims awarded $5,000 in damages for a German Shepard pedigree dog which had been paralyzed as the result of the admitted malpractice of the state veterinary hospital. The court recognized that market value is the normal standard, but believed that the standard of value to the owner could be used "in exceptional circumstances." Id. at 42, 644 N.E.2d 750. The court then applied that standard based on the dog's unique pedigree and time invested in specialized, rigorous training, which established that a similar dog was not available on the open market. Id. Notably, the court also stressed that sentimentality is not a proper element in determining damages caused to animals. Id. The amount ultimately awarded included damages for the animal's loss, plus potential earnings from stud fees.
Nothing from the evidence at trial establishes that Appellee’s lost dog - which was never proven to be the dog adopted out by SPA - was unique or that the circumstances of this case are exceptional in any way. Even if the Court upholds Terry McGrady’s liability, it must strike the damages award, or remand this matter for a redetermination of damages in light of the parameters that restrict the valuation of 9- family pets.
Assignment of Error No. 4: The trial court’s ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the dog which Wagner, as plaintiff in the trial court, claimed to have lost, was the dog which appeared at Appellant’s front door. The trial court thus incorrectly predicated a damages award on an erroneous conclusion for which the Appellee did not carry its burden. This case must be reversed and dismissed by the Court of Appeals, as authorized by
App.R. 12.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has demonstrated that he is personally immune from liability under two different statutes. The trial court failed to disclose a rational basis for its damage award. The key fact of whether Terry McGrady interceded on behalf of Dennis Wagner’s lost dog - the identity of the lost dog - was not proven. For three out of four assignments of error, the Court of Appeals should reverse the trial court and dismiss the suit. On the assignment related to the trial court’s assessment of damages, the Court should reverse and remand for retrial on damages only.
_________________________
Terry J. Lodge
Counsel for Appellant Terry McGrady
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief of Appellant was sent by me this 23rd day of May, 2008 to the following via regular -10-
_________________________
Terry J. Lodge
Counsel for Appellant