IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TAYLOR COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA
BLAKE LECHNER and
ASHLEY LECHNER,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
TRI COUNTY RESCUE, INC., a Georgia
)
nonprofit corporation; THOMAS HOFFMAN; )
and ANDREA HOFFMAN,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION
FILE NO.

COMPLAINT FOR TROVER, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES

COME NOW Plaintiffs in the above-styled action, and for their Complaint for TROVER,
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES against the Defendants hereinabove named, respectfully show
this Honorable Court the following facts to wit:
1.
That Defendant TRI COUNTY RESCUE, INC. is a Georgia nonprofit corporation whose
principal office is located at 1004 Highway 90 West, Charing, Taylor County, Georgia 31058. Said
Defendant may be served with summons, process and a copy of this Complaint by serving its
registered agent for service of process, to wit: Thomas Hoffman, 179 Grey Hound Dog Road (also
known as County Road 38), Mauk, Taylor County, Georgia 31058 . Said Defendant is subject to the
jurisdiction and venue of this Honorable Court.
2.
That Defendant THOMAS HOFFMAN is a resident of this State and County, is subject to
the jurisdiction and venue of this Honorable Court, and may be served with summons, process and
a copy of this Complaint at his residence or business address, to wit: 179 Grey Hound Dog Road

(also known as County Road 38), Mauk, Taylor County, Georgia 31058. Said Defendant is subject
to the jurisdiction and venue of this Honorable Court. Upon information and belief, this Defendant
is an owner and officer of the Defendant, TRI COUNTY RESCUE, INC.
3.
That Defendant ANDREA HOFFMAN is a resident of this State and County, is subject to
the jurisdiction and venue of this Honorable Court, and may be served with summons, process and
a copy of this Complaint at her residence or business address, to wit: 179 Grey Hound Dog Road
(also known as County Road 38), Mauk, Taylor County, Georgia 31058. Said Defendant is subject
to the jurisdiction and venue of this Honorable Court. Upon information and belief, this Defendant
is an owner and officer of the Defendant, TRI COUNTY RESCUE, INC.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE
4.
That at all times relevant to this Complaint, up to and including the present time, Plaintiffs
are the owners of two family pets: a male American bulldog named Spot and a female Labrador
mix dog. Until November 7, 2015 Spot resided in the home occupied by Plaintiff BLAKE
LECHNER, a specialist on active duty with the United States Army and stationed in Fort Benning,
Georgia, his wife, Plaintiff ASHLEY LECHNER, and their two children.
5.
That shortly before November 7, 2015, Plaintiff BLAKE LECHNER learned that, because
of factors associated with his impending military orders transferring them to active duty in Korea,
among other reasons, caused the young family to panic, resulting in their hasty decision to surrender
Spot.
Page 2

6.
Defendant TRI COUNTY RESCUE, INC., upon information and belief, is not licensed by
the Georgia Department of Agriculture to operate an animal shelter, but only an animal rescue
organization, and is licensed and authorized only to collect stray animals on the military base at Fort
Benning, Georgia. Defendants have acted ultra vires in accepting Spot for surrender and in retaining
possession of Spot at all times relevant to this Complaint.
7.
That on or about mid-day on Saturday, November 7, 2015 Plaintiff BLAKE LECHTER was
required to sign a contract form prepared by Defendants, whereby Plaintiffs paid Defendants $20.00
and turned Spot over to Defendants. A copy of the Animal Owner Surrender Form, albeit altered
by Defendants after Plaintiff BLAKE LECHNER left the Fort Benning facility Saturday, is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
8.
That pursuant to the contract Plaintiffs were entitled to a twelve (12) hours period to reclaim
Spot from the Defendants physical custody.
9.
Shortly after Plaintiff BLAKE LECHNER arrived back at his quarters, the family had
changed their minds about the surrender, and realized they had made a terrible mistake. The
Plaintiffs on that same Saturday afternoon they decided to rescind their offer of surrender, and they
called Defendants facility to so inform them within a couple of hours of arriving back at their
quarters on the Army base. Defendants did not answer their phone calls that afternoon.

Page 3

10.
That Plaintiffs resumed calling Defendants facility on the next day, Sunday, November 8,
2015, to try to get Spot back from Defendants, but Defendants did not answer their calls.
11.
That early Monday morning, November 9, 2015, Plaintiff BLAKE LECHNER physically
appeared at Defendants facility and told them he wanted them to get Spot back, and that they had
been trying to communicate this to Defendants during the weekend.
12.
Defendant ANDREA HOFFMAN initially advised Plaintiffs that she was not going to keep
them from getting Spot, but Defendant THOMAS HOFFMAN countermanded her and refused to
return Spot, claiming that over 12 hours had expired and that he didnt have to honor Plaintiffs
request.
13.
That Defendants willfully and intentionally failed and refused to return Spot to the Plaintiffs,
despite demands made by Plaintiffs and, subsequently, their legal counsel. Up to and including the
time of the filing of this action, Defendants have expressed that they will not return Spot to his
family, your Plaintiffs herein, under any circumstances.

COUNT ONEAPPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

14.
That Plaintiffs re-aver the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13)
of this Complaint, and incorporate the same by reference, as fully as if individually set forth herein.
Page 4

15.
That Defendants have already attempted to remove Spot from the jurisdiction of the courts
of this State and judicial circuit by attempting to arrange foster care and adoption for
Spot outside the State of Georgia.
16.
Indeed on Saturday afternoon, November 7, 2015, Defendants had already posted an internet
advertisement with Spots photograph, which indicated that he was available for adoption at that
time. This posting occurred within four hours of Plaintiff BLAKE LECHNER dropping Spot off
at Defendants Fort Benning facility.
17.
Subsequently, after Defendants learned that Plaintiffs had hired counsel to get Spot back,
Defendants attempted to line up at least one foster arrangement in a foreign state, in an attempt to
remove Spot from the jurisdiction of the Georgia courts.
18.
Plaintiffs are deeply and emotionally attached to Spot, and are enduring ongoing, immediate,
substantial and irreparable harm if Defendants are not ordered by temporary injunction to return Spot
to their possession, custody, care and control.
19.
There is no adequate remedy at law that would address such harm, thus making injunctive
relief necessary, as well as just and proper under the circumstances.

Page 5

20.
That the harm to Plaintiffs will continue unabated, and will exacerbate, as long as Spot is
kept from his family, the Plaintiffs herein.
21.
That there is a high probability that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits, as there was never
an authorized, completed and legal surrender of Spot ab initio. On account of these allegations
Plaintiffs require a temporary and a permanent injunction for the return of Spot, to prevent
Defendants from committing any further act or omission that would result in the sale, fostering,
adoption, or relocation of Spot, and to prevent any unsupervised deleterious conduct toward Spot
pending final injunction and resolution of the issues raised in this pleading.
22.
That a temporary injunction, requiring Defendants to return Spot to his family pendente lite,
is the only remedy consistent with Plaintiffs rights, the interests of justice, and the preservation of
evidence material to the ultimate trial of the legal issues raised in this litigation. Such equitable
relief is the only avenue available to the preservation of the status quo ante.
COUNT TWOFRAUD
23.
That Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through
twenty-two (22) of this Complaint, and incorporate the same by reference, as fully as if individually
set forth herein.

Page 6

24.
That Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that they could recover Spot from Defendants and
return to their home with him within twelve (12) hours of the surrender.
25.
That such representation was false, as as Defendants never intended to allow Plaintiffs to
recover their family pet, Spot, once Plaintiff BLAKE LECHNER left the Fort Benning facility on
Saturday, November 7, 2015.
26.
That Plaintiffs relied upon Defendants representation to their detriment, as Defendants
refused to answer Plaintiffs calls and refused their in-person demand for the return of Spot, once
Plaintiff BLAKE LECHNER appeared when the business opened the subsequent Monday morning,
November 9, 2015.
27.
That Plaintiffs have suffered damage as the direct and proximate result of Defendants fraud,
in the nature of emotional upset and distress, loss of property rights to their family dog, and
significant legal expenses in an effort to mitigate the damages caused by Defendants fraud and
deceit, as Defendants never intended to allow Plaintiffs to recover their family pet, Spot, once
Plaintiff BLAKE LECHNER left the Fort Benning facility on Saturday, November 7, 2015.
28.
That Defendants are liable for punitive or exemplary damages for their fraud in an amount
to be determined by the trier of fact and which is consistent with punishment and deterrence of future
fraudulent conduct on the part of the Defendants.
Page 7

COUNT THREEBAD FAITH

29.
That Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through
twenty-eight (28) of this Complaint, and incorporate the same by reference, as fully as if individually
set forth herein.
30.
Defendants have acted in bad faith toward Plaintiffs, have been stubbornly and unduly
litigious in their pre-suit conduct over the issues raised herein, and have caused them unnecessary
trouble and expense.
31.
Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for the reasonable attorneys fees, costs and
expenses associated with securing injunctive relief and for securing the recovery of Plaintiffs
damages, pursuant to O.C.G.A. 13-6-11. Said fees and expenses are, for the time, ongoing, but
will be proved with specificity at the time of trial of this action.
COUNT FOURTROVER AND REPLEVY
32.
That Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through
thirty-one (31) of this Complaint, and incorporate the same by reference, as fully as if individually
set forth herein.

Page 8

33.
That Defendants came into possession of Spot upon Plaintiff BLAKE LECHNERs execution
of the form attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint, and upon paying Defendants $20.00 as
compensation for the conditional bailment.
34.
That Defendants willfully failed to account for or return Spot to Plaintiffs, are subject to
trover and are liable to Plaintiffs for damages for failure to replevy Spot to his rightful and lawful
owners, your Plaintiffs herein.
COUNT FIVECONVERSION
35.
That Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through
thirty-one (31) of this Complaint, and incorporate the same by reference, as fully as if individually
set forth herein.
36.
That Defendants, acting in concert and conspiracy to defraud Plaintiffs, have absconded with
Spot, in order to profit from his eventual sale or adoption-for-a-fee. Defendants had already
advertised Spots availability for adoption before the sun set over Fort Benning on Saturday evening,
November 8, 2015.
37.
At all relevant times, the Defendants have refused Plaintiffs demands, and those of their
counsel, for possession of Spot, and have adopted the position that they will not return Spot to his

Page 9

family under any terms or conditions. Plaintiffs are left with no options other than instituting civil
litigation to recover Spot.
38.
That Defendants, within a couple of hours after Plaintiff BLAKE LECHNER dropped Spot
off at the Fort Benning facility, posted Spots photograph and information on the social media and
internet, and thereby implied to the public that Spot was available for monetary donations and/or
adoption. The Defendants actions constitute a conversion actionable both under the civil and the
criminal laws of Georgia.
39.
That Defendants actions, individually and in concert and conspiracy, constitute conversion
under the laws of Georgia, and have proximately caused Plaintiffs emotional distress and suffering,
loss of the value of their property, and unnecessary worry, trouble and expense.
40.
That Defendants knew or should have known that their tortious conduct would have, as a
natural and probable result, the infliction of needless and cruel suffering upon the Plaintiffs incident
to the loss of their companion animal, Spot.
COUNT SIXINTENTIONAL BREACH OF CONTRACT
41.
That Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through
forty (40) of this Complaint, and incorporate the same by reference, as fully as if individually set
forth herein.

Page 10

42.
That in the event the Court concludes that the facts leading to the execution of the document
appended hereto as Exhibit A amounted to the formation of a valid and enforceable contract
between the parties, then Defendants intentionally breached that contract by publicly advertising and
offering Spot for sale or adoption on their personal medial and corporate web sites.
43.
That Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs, jointly and severally, for such intentional breach of
contract.
44.
That Plaintiffs have suffered compensatory damages and special damages in amounts to be
proved at the time of trial, together with punitive or exemplary damages occasioned by the
willfullness and intentionality behind Defendants breach of contract.
PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
45.
That Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through
forty-four (44) of this Complaint, and incorporate the same by reference, as fully as if individually
set forth herein.
46.
The tortious acts and omissions of Defendants as particularized herein were aimed at securing
for themselves unjusts enrichment and an egregious deprivation of Plaintiffs interest in property and
the return of their belovedand very much missedfamily member, Spot. They rise to the level of

Page 11

willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness and oppression, giving rise to a presumption of
conscious indifference to the injurious consequences of their acts.
47.
That the acts and omissions of Defendants rise to the level of a clear and convincing
demonstration of willful, stubborn, fraudulent and wanton behavior, in clear disregard of the rights
of others, and entitles these Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages, pursuant to O.C.G.A. 5112-5 and/or 51-12-5.1, as well as any and all common law allowances supporting such an award
so as to deter and/or punish Defendants or in redress of emotional distress or that which is supported
where nominal damages are awarded.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray:

a)

That each and every Defendant be served with summons, process, Rule Nisi, and a

copy of this Complaint as provided by law;

b)

That Plaintiffs be granted an Emergency Hearing, and that a Temporary Injunction

issue, requiring Defendants to immediately turn over possession, care, custody and control of Spot
to the Plaintiffs;
c)

That Plaintiffs be granted a Permanent Injunction against Defendants, requiring them

to cease and desist all incidents of possession, ownership and control of Spot and to return the
permanent possession, care, custody and control of Spot to the Plantiffs.
d)

That, upon trial of this action, the Plaintiffs have judgment against Defendants for

contract damages in an amount consistent with the proof adduced at trial; alternatively,
e)

That, upon trial of this action, the Plaintiffs have judgment against Defendants in an
Page 12

amount sufficient to compensate them for Defendants fraud and unlawful conversion of Spot,
together with;
f)

an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the trier of fact as

punitive or exemplary damages, to deter Defendants from such tortious conduct in the future;
g)

That Plaintiffs recover an award of reasonable attorneys fees and the expenses of

this litigation consistent with O.C.G.A. 13-6-11 and in light of Defendants bad faith; and
h)

For such other relief that this Court may be just and proper under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,

____________________________________
R. Edward Furr, Jr.
Georgia Bar No. 280967
Attorney for Plaintiffs

2316 Candler Road

Decatur, Georgia 30032
(404) 284-7110 voice
(404) 284-7111 facsimile
edwardfurr@yahoo.com

Page 13

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TAYLOR COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA
BLAKE LECHNER and
ASHLEY LECHNER,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
TRI COUNTY RESCUE, INC., a Georgia
)
nonprofit corporation; THOMAS HOFFMAN; )
and ANDREA HOFFMAN,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION
FILE NO.

RULE NISI
The above styled case having come on before the Court upon Plaintiffs Motion for a
Temporary Injunction as recited in Plaintiffs Complaint, and the same having been read and
considered, it is hereby ORDERED: that Defendants be and appear before The Honorable
_____________________________________, Judge Presiding, at __________ oclock ___.M.
on the ________ day of ____________________________, 2015, in Courtroom ____________,
Taylor County Courthouse, 2 North Broad Street, Butler, Georgia 31006, there to show cause, if any
they have, why Plaintiffs prayers for temporary relief should not be granted.
This _________ day of November, 2015.

____________________________________
Judge, Taylor County Superior Court
Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit
State of Georgia
Presented by:
R. Edward Furr, Jr.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Georgia Bar No. 280967
2316 Candler Road
Decatur, Georgia 30032
(404) 284-7110 voice
(404) 284-7111 facsimile
edwardfurr@yahoo.com

Page 14