A woman claiming ownership of an orange tabby cat after a relationship breakup didn’t prove she was the sole owner of the pet and entitled to keep it, the Eighth District Court of Appeals ruled. In addition, her ex’s actions didn’t show abandonment of the cat.

The couple split in spring 2023. For 19 months, the cat, named Marvin, went back and forth between Chrisionna Graves and Jillian Solorzano. In November 2024, though, while Solorzano had Marvin, she blocked Graves’ phone number and refused to let Graves see Marvin.

Graves filed a civil case in Parma Municipal Court in January 2025.

Couple Move to Ohio With Cat
Graves and Solorzano were in a romantic relationship in California when they got Marvin in February 2022. The couple moved from California to Ohio in June 2022 and lived together.

In April 2023, the romantic relationship ended, and Solorzano moved out in September without Marvin.

At the court hearing, Graves testified that Marvin was given to them both. Although Marvin went back and forth between their homes after they broke up, Graves said he was mostly with her. She believed she paid for most of the cat’s food and veterinary bills after Solorzano moved out.

Solorzano testified that Marvin was given only to her. After the breakup, she had Marvin at her home at least once a month, and she continued to pay for the pet health insurance and some food and veterinary bills.

They submitted receipts, pet health insurance policies, and text exchanges.

In February 2025, the municipal court found that the former couple’s intent was to share Marvin equally. Also, Solorzano didn’t abandon Marvin when she moved out because she continued to care for him and provide monetary and other support for the cat’s needs, the court determined.

Graves appealed to the Eighth District.

Appeals Court Considers Whether Cat Was Wrongfully Taken
State courts have ruled that a cat is property, and an owner can file a civil suit, called a replevin action, to address the wrongful taking of a cat. The person who files this type of suit must prove ownership of the pet and an entitlement to possess the pet. Graves argued she met the burden of proof needed to show the municipal court that she had the right to own Marvin.

In the unanimous Eighth District opinion, Judge Deena Calabrese found that Graves didn’t prove the necessary elements. The record reflected that the couple obtained Marvin while living together and both cared for him physically and financially before the breakup. After Solorzano moved out, they each continued to take care of Marvin. Even though Graves may have provided a greater amount of care and support, it didn’t negate Solorzano’s ownership interest, the opinion stated.

Allegation of Abandonment Analyzed
Graves also contended that Solorzano abandoned Marvin, based on the meaning of “abandon” as understood when applying R.C. 959.01. The Eighth District noted that cases involving that statute were criminal prosecutions. The cases included convictions for leaving dogs at a past home and not returning to care for them; releasing a dog on the side of a road; and leaving a cat outside a closed veterinarian’s office.

The court declined to apply the meaning of “abandon” used for criminal cases to this civil claim and instead relied on other state appellate court decisions. Those rulings explain that abandonment of an animal in a replevin case means “an absolute unequivocal relinquishment of a right or status without regard to self or any other person. It is a virtual throwing away without regard as to who may take over or carry on. It is a total desertion of what existed or went before; and evidence thereof must be direct, affirmative or reasonably beget the exclusive inference of throwing away.”

Judge Calabrese wrote that Solorzano said she never intended to abandon Marvin, and her actions didn’t indicate abandonment.

The evidence supported those assertions, the opinion found. In addition to Marvin residing in both homes and Solorzano continuing to pay for food and pet health insurance, “[Solorzano’s] continued care for Marvin also shows a lack of total desertion or virtual throwing away of Marvin,” the opinion stated. The municipal court correctly rejected Graves’ claim, the Eighth District concluded.

Judges Michelle Sheehan and Eileen T. Gallagher joined the opinion.

Graves v. Solorzano, 2025-Ohio-4472.