Yet another pet ownership dispute has been settled by the Appeals Court. (See last month’s post: Trial Judge Cannot Order Joint Custody of a Pet, Appeals Court Says.)
Today’s case involved a border-collie/pit-bull mix named Sadie. The dog was adpoted by the plaintiff, Breana Williams and given to the defendant, John Hickson.
According to the facts, Breana and John dated and broke up for a time. During the break in their relationship, John began dating another woman and became emotionally attached to her dog.
John’s fling didn’t last and before long he was back together with Breana. Although John and Breana were a couple once again, John couldn’t stop talking about his ex-girlfriend’s dog.
In an effort to pacify John, Breana adopted Sadie. Breana signed the adoption contract, paid the vet bills, and agreed to pay a fine of $300 to the shelter if she ever gave away or sold the pup.
Although Breana paid the bills and took legal responsibility for the animal, John watched and cared for Sadie on a daily basis.
John and Breana’s relationship once again fell apart. When they separated, John moved in with his parents and took Sadie with him.
Breana filed a lawsuit in superior court seeking repossession of the dog in a replevin action.
In the words of Black’s Law Dictionary, replevin is
An action for the repossession of personal property wrongfully taken or detained by the defendant, whereby the plaintiff gives security for and holds the property until the court decides who owns it.
Initially the court sided with Breana and issued a preliminary injunction requiring John to return the dog.
However, after a bench trial, the judge concluded that Sadie was in fact a gift from Breana to John and thus John was the rightful owner.
Breana appealed the decision.
The Appeals Court affirmed the trial judge’s decision.
In their opinion, the justices cited the applicable law as follows:
Under Massachusetts law, dogs and other pets are treated as personal property. It is settled that in order to effect a completed gift of personal property there must be a settled donative intention on the part of the donor, together with an actual or symbolic delivery of the subject matter of the gift to the donee . . . in such manner as completely to transfer the dominion and control of [the property to the donee].
The justices concluded that Breana’s “donative intent” was evident from the facts. She adopted Sadie with the intent of giving the dog to John. Additionally, John’s day-to-day interaction with the pooch was sufficient evidence of “delivery” of the gift. The court is quick to add that
Courts applying the common law of transfer by gift generally apply the delivery element more loosely when the gift is made between members of the same household.
Most interesting, in my opinion, is the court’s discussion of the adoption contract. Breana argued that the written adoption agreement gave her the strongest claim to ownership. The court rejected this argument in a footnote that states
The adoption contract itself [did not] establish or govern the plaintiff’s intent as a matter of law. The contract did not prevent the plaintiff from giving Sadie away; it merely made her liable for liquidated damages if she did so. Relatedly, the adoption contract was not dispositive of who had title to Sadie. Even in the context of motor vehicles, for which written title is generally required…being named on the written title is not dispositive of ownership; dominion and control must also be considered.
To read the entire opinion, click the document below.