Would we have to give back our dog?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Not a real legal issue (yet?).
We took in a rescue dog. She is 15 and the owner is away at college and her parents move out of the country. The owner new if she took the dog to the pound (pooch prison) she would never get adopted so it was either we take the dog in or she would be put down. We took her in. She is enjoying what time she has left. She is kind of the Cousin Oliver of the family but she has a yard, gets good healthy food (OMG the shit she was fed before) and scratches on the cheek. Been that way for about a year now. Obviously there is no paperwork, transfer of ownership, bill of sale, &c.

Yesterday the previous owner texted out of nowhere “How is Cricket doing?” I don’t know if she wants Cricket back but it raised the question, what if she does? Who is the legal owner of the dog if it came before a judge?

2

We have had multiple dogs and cats over the past 20 years while we have lived in NW Indiana. Several of our four legged friends have been effectively inheritances – neighbors would die, and we would take in their pets (in one case I did a wellness check on a neighbor and found the body and his dog, which I had been walking on occasions when the neighbor had been in hospital). After we took them home, when asked what I would do if a relative of the deceased had shown up asking for the dog or cat, my answer to the hypothetical was always, “Show me a court order signed by a judge, and the dog/cat is yours. Otherwise, fuck off.”

3

IANAL but it would boils down to what was said, I think. If there was an explicit statement “I am giving you this dog, permanently” then that would count as a verbal contract? If not she (and even if there was, verbal contracts being worth the paper they are written on and all) then she could claim there was only ever an agreement to temporarily look after the dog?

I’ll leave it to actual lawyers to weigh in. I’d assume the law treats a dog no differently to a sofa or a bicycle. You exchanged the property and then both parties carried on (for a year) as if the exchange was permanent, so that is an implied contract? But maybe some jurisdictions have special laws covering exchanging an animal?

4

Is the precedent Finder’s Keepers v. Loser’s Weepers?

5

Would it make a difference if we show that we provide more than room & board? Vet bills for a check up, grooming, &c. And she has never given us a dime to help out - not that we wanted it.

6

Good question. Maybe it would be analogous to a car repair shop. If you want your car back you need to pay them for the work, or they will keep your car and sell it to cover the costs.

Though that requires a written contact AFAIK. It’s in the small print you sign when you drop your car off,.

7

If someone challenges your right to keep the dog, I would consider going to small claims court and asking the judge for reimbursement for all the canine costs you had to pay since taking responsibility for the dog. Ensure you have a detailed list of the costs, including any vet bills you paid. Considering the dog is safe and happy in its current living situation, I can’t see any judge ruling against you keeping the dog.

8

The precedent in the situations I was involved with was that we were the only people the animals had any contact with other than the decedents, and we had bonded with them. These weren’t pedigree show animals, they were strays that had been taken in, and the neighbors who died were pretty thoroughly neglected by their families as well. If one of them had wanted one of the beasties enough to get a court order, it would show me they had some interest in the animal(s).

I suppose my precedent is more on the order of “Possession is 9/10ths of the law”.

9

I think you’re overthinking this. Assuming we’re talking about the college student and not the out of country parents, the former owner is probably still not in a position to care for a dog, especially a senior dog that may only have a little time left. I am also not a lawyer, but I’m a dog lover, and were I a judge, I would consider what is in the dog’s best interests? A lawyer might think of the dog in terms of property and rule differently, but if you’re giving the dog a loving, stable home, that means a lot.

Then again, she may just be wondering how Cricket is doing. We wonder all the time how a dog we fostered for several months is doing.

10

We have. Cricket stays with us. I’m just wondering if she has a legal basis for making us give Cricket back. Hopefully it was just an annual “checking in with my dog”.

11

That’s how I interpreted it, too. I’m sure she misses Cricket.

12

Lawyer, but not a contracts lawyer, married to a lawyer who teaches contract law. Neither of us are your lawyer.

Cricket is your dog. No reason to view the transaction as anything other than a gift. Did you pay anything (consideration)? Were there any specific conditions discussed (and were they written?). Such as “Will you watch my dog until I finish college?”

Only possible wrinkle might be if you wanted to get rid of Cricket, ought you give the previous owner right of first refusal? But doubt that is mandatory. Just good form.

Feel free to fill her in (or not) on how Cricket is doing. But don’t worry about needing to give her back.

13

Is that because Cricket is a domestic animal? Would it be any different if this was say a bike? If I give you my bike without explicitly saying whether or not it’s a permanent gift, and carry on for a year as if it was your bike. Would the assumption be that it was a gift and the bike is now yours, even if I come back in a year and ask for it back?

14

Cricket is personal property. Chattel. Many folk think animals ought to be treated differently than a bike, but under the law, they generally aren’t. For example, I run over your dog, I’m generally liable for the replacement cost, not the untold millions of emotional value you perceive.

Anyone can ask for whatever they wish. And if they don’t get the answer they wish, they can pursue whatever legal recourse they wish.

If Cricket’s - or the bike’s - owner file suit to get their property back, they would generally have to present proof as to why it wasn’t a gift. They bear the burden of proof, establishing at least a prima facie case, which can then be rebutted. As a very general matter - judges don’t tend to be complete idiots. And they are aware of the legal - and commonplace - concept of gifts. When you give your nephew a birthday present, do you both have to sign documents to make sure you don’t get to take it back later?

Generally the owner appears to have intended to give Cricket to the OP, they gave Cricket to the OP, the OP accepted Cricket, and the OP did not pay for Cricket or give anything in return (consideration). That is what appears to have happened.

If someone wishes as transaction to be viewed differently than it appears, it is generally on them to take the necessary precautions. And their self-serving testimony is generally insufficient to meet their burden. The prior owner says it was not a gift, but instead, something else. What? A loan? A bailment? Some other manner of property transfer? But they have ZERO evidence to support that interpretation. OP says it was a gift. Meanwhile, the OP had exclusive control over Cricket, paying all costs, and there is no writing of any kind - receipt, contract, etc.. What sort of evidence do you expect to be effective in proving that this was NOT a gift?

Like I said, I’m not a contract lawyer and I’m not writing up a legal document here. I’m sure I got something wrong so far, and probably ought not try to go any further. I’m sure someone will come along and explain how and where I was off base.

15

I don’t know about legal mumbo-jumble but in my experience they Never return for the dog*. Especially young college students.

Yeah, you own that dog. For good and all.

*barring it being an expensive purebred showdog.

16

One consideration here given what Dinsdale has written is that we did change the dog’s name (because her former name was stupid) and that can be verified though vet records, grooming records and common usage. I suppose I could contend in court that we would not have changed her name unless we had the understanding that ownership had transferred to us.

17

I wouldn’t think so, by why ask about her after a year of ghosting her dog? And college students are not the sharpest sandwich in the basket. If this turned into, “I miss her so much. I can keep her in our new apartment.” it would not be the most shocking thing I’ve heard all month.

18

That is not what is meant by legal/contractual consideration. Changing the dog’s name is not something of value (even a peppercorn) - either tangible or a promise to do or not do something - in exchange for the dog.

(Speaking to myself - I REALLY have to be careful NOT to hold myself out as anyone who really knows much of anything about contract law.)

19

I would take this communication at face value. They are checking in - just respond that way.

20

Even easier!

“Who? Ain’t no Cricket around here!”