Dog ownership

S

Soggero

New Member
Jurisdiction
Oregon
I am being taken to small claims court over dog ownership. Being sued for 2500.00 pain and suffering and the return of the dog. I have documentation showing that I bought the dog,also have documentation showing that I have register his microchip number in my name and I have documentation showing that I have him licensed with the state of oregon. plug I have documentation showing get it have paid for his rabies shots. is there anyway the court could or would make me return the dog


Yes they say I stole their dog which is not true because I have a bill of sale for the dog
 
You will need to present your documentation (make your case) & the other side will present what they have (make their case) & the judge will decide who wins. There is no way we can know what a judge might decide or what the other party has.
 
Soggero said:
Being sued for 2500.00 pain and suffering and the return of the dog.
Click to expand...


You can forget the "pain and suffering", even IF you stole the dog.
You say you didn't steal it, and I'm NOT accusing you of stealing it.
I'm simply pointing out that small claims courts can't award judgments for "pain and suffering".
Small claims courts can only award "actual damages"/
In this case, the worst financial hit you can take is the value of the property, in this case a dog.
If the dog was a rescue animal, a mutt, no one is going to get anywhere near $2,500.

So, don't worry, even if the person prevails; all you'll lose is the value of the dog.

Now, don't go blabbing about what i told you.
Just sit back, shut up, go to court and argue your facts.
The other person might get the dog, assuming the dog is still alive, or the value of the dog.
If it was a rescue animal, maybe fifty bucks, but I doubt if it'll approach a hundred bucks.
 
Soggero said:
Yes they say I stole their dog which is not true because I have a bill of sale for the dog
Click to expand...
So they may not be accusing you of stealing the dog but that someone stole the dog, which could be you, or that you had purchased a stolen dog. There are a couple of legal concepts and common sense that might apply. As @army judge mentions, small claims court awards money damages, not equity. This means that you'll still keep possession of the dog at the end of the day. The question is how much money you may need to pay to the plaintiff in damages, if any.

Regarding your bill of sale: Nemo dat quod non habet - "no one gives what he doesn't have". Did the seller have right to sell the dog? We don't know why the plaintiff is claiming that this was not the case. There is a question as to whether you were a bona fide purchaser. You mention a microchip that is embedded within the dog but don't mention whether the dog was prior registered and whether it was under the seller's name. What due diligence did you perform, if any, to determine whether the seller actually owned the dog? The answers to these questions will determine whether or not you should pay money damages to the plaintiff.
 
Michael M. Wechsler said:
So they may not be accusing you of stealing the dog but that someone stole the dog, which could be you, or that you had purchased a stolen dog. There are a couple of legal concepts and common sense that might apply. As @army judge mentions, small claims court awards money damages, not equity. This means that you'll still keep possession of the dog at the end of the day. The question is how much money you may need to pay to the plaintiff in damages, if any.

Regarding your bill of sale: Nemo dat quod non habet - "no one gives what he doesn't have". Did the seller have right to sell the dog? We don't know why the plaintiff is claiming that this was not the case. There is a question as to whether you were a bona fide purchaser. You mention a microchip that is embedded within the dog but don't mention whether the dog was prior registered and whether it was under the seller's name. What due diligence did you perform, if any, to determine whether the seller actually owned the dog? The answers to these questions will determine whether or not you should pay money damages to the plaintiff.
Click to expand...
No previous owner has microchip pedal the dog I have been with this dog since it was born in am the one who microchiped the dog and it's registered in my name is had a police officer call me said he was investigating a stolen dog report I emailed the documenting I had for the dog and he called me next day said he was turning the case over to the DA. These people were ex roommates of mine and she did watch the dog alot while I was a work but the dog has always mine I left on bad terms with them after finding out she beat my dog while I was at work one night and I moved out the next day because of that
 
I bought the from my ex girlfriend she has the mom and dad of my dog buster. the litter of puppies she had happened in my house my ex is going to testify that the dog was hers and she sold him to me pretty cut and dry when her dogs produced my dog. being it was my dog I had him micro chipped and licensed in my name .the other party is saying that I tricked the vet into giving me the papers for the microchip.once my ex testifys that she was the owner of the dog I got from her shouldn't that be case closed at that point ????
 
Soggero said:
once my ex testifys that she was the owner of the dog I got from her shouldn't that be case closed at that point ????
Click to expand...

That decision is ultimately up to the trial judge, and/or a jury if there is one empaneled.

People on the Internet know less about that than do you.
 
I'm even more confused now. So the dog in question was (a) born in your home; and (b) whose progenitors / parents were indisputably owned by your ex-girlfriend who provided you with a bill of sale. So who is this third party claiming that they own the dog? Is this someone who claims that the dog's litter was theirs and that you stole the dog? Even that doesn't make too much sense since then they would be suing your ex-girlfriend, the original dog owner, as opposed to you.
 
What it comes down to is they say I owe them 2500 for rent but we never had a rental agreement .So when I moved out they said I owed them rent but without a rental agreement they know they are not going to get any money out of me without a contract so they are using the dog .
 
Talk about the story changing dramatically over discussion. So this is really a landlord tenant matter and whether you were a guest or a tenant with an oral lease. Did you ever have any agreement to pay rent? Who was the landlord? Why would they just allow you to live rent free? What is your ex-girlfriend's position? This is the crux of the matter, not the dog. If they other party comes into court demanding money as compensation for a dog they don't own, I doubt they will receive any monetary award. But if we're talking small claims court and they have identified rent as a potential issue, they may ask for back rent and have the dog as a secondary argument. I honestly don't know. This has become a convoluted affair.
 
Can a case be dismissed on the grounds of the person that served me is a party of the plaintiff. This same person has been to my mom's house harassing her wanting to know if I was living there and the person that served me is a witnesses for the plaintiff also. How can I bring this up before the hearing. This is a major wrong doing on the plaintiffs behalf .
 
Yes I paid rent every month 1100.00 for a 1bedroom room one of the reason I had to move out was there drug addiction to meth I couldn't take it anymore these people are out of there minds the way they thing and reason with things i could never figure out where they were coming from half the time until they both got meth possession charges then it all came out in the wash. it's one of those things I could tell you how far out there these people are from reality but until you live under the same roof and truely see it for yourself Noone would ever beleive me.Another question the plaintiff had one of her druggie friends serve me who lives with them now and I beleive she is going to also testify on the plaintiffs behalf on the lies they are going to try to bring up in court from what I understand the personal server can have no party ties with the plaintiff nor defendent is this grounds for dismissal of the case
 
One more thing they haven't claimed rent as any part of the law suit that is my opinion for the simple fact that the dog is mine and I have all the documents vet bills pictures etc. I am just dumbfounded that she could even bring me to small claims over this she has nothing to back her up but her and her friends lies I would think documentation would prevail over having nothing
 
In short, if the plaintiff isn't actually the party injured, the case can be dismissed because the wrong party brought a lawsuit. But to be frank, I have no idea what is going on any more. I haven't seen the complaint and all that the dispute encompasses. If it is in small claims court, expect to have a liberal amount to defend. And if these alleged meth addicts are as confused as this case is, expect the judge to feel the same way. The plaintiff must prove the facts and wrongs alleged in their lawsuit, whatever that may be.
 
Soggero said:
I am just dumbfounded that she could even bring me to small claims over this she has nothing to back her up but her and her friends lies I would think documentation would prevail over having nothing
Click to expand...

Mate, suing a person is as easy as filling out a couple forms, dropping a few bucks to file the case (maybe claiming you're indigent and get the fees waived), and sowing up in court to argue your case.

I once read about a guy who randomly sued people for nonsensical stuff daily, just because he could pretend he was a lawyer for the day. The guy was a trust fund baby, a college drop out, and loved to play dress up and go to court.

Guy never won a case, but loved carrying a beautiful lawyer's case, like this one.lawyerbag.jpg

So, don't be surprised, this happens millions of times a day all across the USA.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top