CALAIS – A 4th District Court judge Monday ruled that a Topsfield woman has to put up a $10,000 surety for the care and support of her animals while her appeal in an animal abuse case lumbers through the appellate court system.

The money would go to the state Animal Welfare Program.

Last year, state officials confiscated 20 dogs and one cat from the property of Margo Malpher amid allegations of neglect and abuse.

Although Malpher’s attorney Ron Bourget of Augusta on Monday applauded the judge for reducing the amount from the nearly $100,000 the state originally had requested, he still had concerns.

“The rules of appellate procedure are set up for a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every appeal. We are mindful that the judge has looked at the preliminary request by the government as being grossly out of proportion so therefore he reduced it down to one-tenth of the amount,” Bourget said. “That being the case, we still feel strongly that does not allow an inexpensive determination of every appeal that the Maine Constitution and Maine Appellate Court requires.”

The judge has not yet set an amount in the case of Donna Levi of Princeton, who also is appealing her animal abuse case.

Earlier this month, First District Attorney Paul Cavanaugh filed a state’s demand for surety in the case of Malpher and similar documents in the case of Levi.

Last year, 4th District Court Judge John Romei of Calais ordered, after a two-day hearing, that Malpher’s 20 dogs and one cat be forfeited to the state. The order was issued Jan. 12.

In a separate hearing last year, the state ordered 14 dogs belonging to Levi’s husband, Brian, be forfeited to the state.

That led to both women filing appeals.

In the state’s demand for surety, Cavanaugh wrote that before an appeal is allowed, Malpher “shall give sufficient security … to pay all expenses of the care and support of the animals pending appeal.”

Cavanaugh then added up the cost to care for the animals while the appeal was waiting to be heard.

“The state is asking the court to require Ms. Malpher, as a condition precedent to this appeal, to post $98,952 as sufficient security for this appeal on the conditional order that should the order of forfeiture be affirmed in this appeal that money itself is forfeited to the Humane Society for the care of these animals,” Cavanaugh wrote.

But Bourget said Monday that there still were unresolved issues. “There are constitutional issues, there are issues with regard to property ownership and the government intervention. … Individual rights issues are active throughout this appellate litigation and so therefore you shouldn’t set a dollar amount so high that these issues can’t get appealed,” he said by telephone from his office.

Bourget said he had just received the judge’s order and was still reviewing his client’s options. “Although the judge did right by recognizing the excessive amount that was suggested, the $10,000 I think is still to a degree high enough that it curbs the individual rights of people to appeal,” he said.

On Sept. 19, 2006, an Animal Welfare Program agent went to Malpher’s home in Topsfield, but Malpher was in Massachusetts. Two days later the agent returned, and the dogs were taken to the Bangor Humane Society. Several of the dogs had a black discharge coming from their ears. It took five groomers at the Bangor Humane Society all weekend to clean the dogs.

The dogs’ condition in the Levi case came to the attention of state animal control officers after they received a report in October of last year that the unattended animals were without food and water, and some of the dogs had broken windows attempting to get out of the house. It was estimated that the dogs had been without food and water for 36 hours at the time of the seizure. The dogs may have been eating their feces because of lack of food, state agents speculated.

Levi could not be reached for comment Monday.