Scooby Dooby Doo, Whose Are You?

In Roger v. Keller, decided earlier this month by Waterbury, Connecticut trial court judge Robert D'Andrea, plaintiffs had a pit bull named Scooby; they kept him with defendants (who were apparently, to oversimplify, plaintiffs' family members) for three years, despite defendants' insistence that plaintiffs take them back. Eventually, defendants gave him away (the opinion is unclear on to whom), and plaintiffs sued, claiming this violated plaintiffs' property rights:

Plaintiff Roger filed an affidavit attesting that on or about November 9, 2019, he found the pit bull abandoned in Waterbury and took possession of it that day. However, the plaintiffs, rather than taking the pit bull to their own apartment, brought the pit bull to 25 Linden Street, Oakville, Connecticut, the home of defendants Deborah Roger and Phil Roger (collectively "Rogers"). The plaintiffs asked the Rogers to take care of the pit bull for a few weeks, then for a few months, then for a few more months, and so on. The plaintiffs did not live at 25 Linden Street, but the plaintiffs rented in the Waterbury/Watertown/Oakville area property which prohibited animals. The pit bull resided with the defendants in Oakville from approximately November 9, 2019 through June 28, 2022, or about two years and eight months.

From the start, and for the entirety of the nearly three years Scooby lived with them, the Rogers claim that they repeatedly asked the plaintiffs to take back possession of Scooby citing physical and financial circumstances; and although the plaintiffs had numerous opportunities to do so, they repeatedly failed to take action. Following a major back surgery, defendant Deborah Roger asserts that she demanded that the plaintiffs take possession of Scooby or else it would be rehomed. Defendant Deborah Roger further warned the plaintiff Roger that Scooby would be rehomed should the plaintiff Roger be arrested or incarcerated. Once again, the defendants assert that the plaintiffs had numerous opportunities to take possession but repeatedly failed to do so.

The defendants Rogers and their family, with the exception of the plaintiffs, were the sole providers for the pit bull during the nearly three-year period it lived with them in Oakville. The defendants Roger, not the plaintiffs, provided Scooby food, water, shelter, entertainment, and exercise. The defendant Rogers, not the plaintiffs, let Scooby outside and cleaned up after it. The defendants Roger, not the plaintiffs, incurred the cost associated with its care. The plaintiffs occasionally took Scooby for an overnight stay at their rental properties but otherwise left it with the Rogers in Oakville and bought several bags of food over the nearly three-year period. At no point did the plaintiffs take possession of Scooby, provide for it, or offer compensation to the defendants Roger for the cost they incurred. The plaintiffs simply expected the defendants Roger to take care of Scooby indefinitely.

Some time during 2021, the plaintiff Roger moved in with the defendant Rogers at 25 Linden Street while plaintiff Rizzo returned to her parents' home in Morris, Connecticut. There was no lease, verbal or written, for the plaintiff Roger's stay with the defendants Rogers, and he did not pay rent or utilities. Notwithstanding that plaintiff Roger lived with Scooby, the Rogers continued to be the exclusive providers for Scooby. The defendant Rogers continued to incur the cost of its care. Attached to the defendants' affidavit is defendant Deborah Roger's order history from Chewy.com, an online vendor which delivered food and toys for Scooby.

Some time between May and June 2022, plaintiff Roger learned of a warrant for his arrest, and he fled the defendant Rogers' home, leaving all personal property, including Scooby. In addition to his flight and attempt to evade the warrant, the plaintiff Roger provided his defense attorney fabricated documents indicating he was killed in action in Ukraine. Attached as Exhibit B is a transcript of State v. Roger, Docket No. U04W-CR16-0436674-S, in which counsel and the court (Papastavros, J.) discuss and attempt to verify said totally fabricated documentation. None of the defendants are currently in possession of the pit bull….

Here's a quick summary of the legal analysis, though the opinion is quite long:

Here, Scooby was left with the defendants for care …. The defendant Rogers …, demanded the plaintiffs take possession of the pit bull, as demonstrated by their sworn affidavit. The plaintiffs' failure to take action in response to the defendants' demands … evinces their intent to abandon Scooby….

[I]t is the defendant Rogers, not the plaintiffs, who have the requisite superior possessory interest. It defies common sense to leave your pet with others and requiring them to provide food, shelter, medical care and other pet-related needs, while attempting to avoid the long arm of the law by going "underground." The defendant Rogers' possessory interest in Scooby precludes the plaintiffs from establishing the elements required to maintain an action for replevin, or for that matter, conversion, as they cannot demonstrate that they have a superior possessory right to Scooby….

Additionally, the plaintiffs have asked this court to return Scooby to the defendants Rogers' home in Oakville because the plaintiffs are physically unable to take possession. This court cannot create a dog-related form of "indentured servitude" by requiring the defendant Rogers to again take continued unwanted possession of Scooby, and continue with care, pay all expenses, medical, food or otherwise for an indefinite period of time until either plaintiff Rizzo moves to a residence that would allow her to take possession of pets, or until plaintiff Roger is released from the Department of Correction detention and relocates to a suitable residence that will permit him to take possession of Scooby. For this court order the defendant Rogers to house, feed, provide medical care, and provide multiple daily bathroom duty for Scooby, for which they have no time, desire, or ability, would constitute a grave injustice to the defendant Rogers….