exist roger v. kellerEarlier this month, Waterbury, Connecticut trial court Judge Robert D’Andrea ruled that the plaintiff owned a pit bull named Scooby; despite the defendant’s insistence The plaintiff was asked to bring them back, but they still kept him locked up with the defendants (who were, simply put, apparently family members of the plaintiff) for three years. Eventually, the defendant sold him (it is not clear to whom) and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming that this violated the plaintiff’s property rights:
Plaintiff Roger submitted an affidavit stating that on or about November 9, 2019, he found the pit bull abandoned in Waterbury and took possession of it that day. However, instead of bringing the pit bull to his apartment, the plaintiff brought the pit bull to 25 Linden Street, Oakville, Connecticut, where defendants Deborah Rodger and Phil Rodger (collectively, ” Rogers”) home. The plaintiffs asked the Rogers to care for the pit bull for weeks, then months, then months more, and so on. The plaintiff does not live at 25 Linden Street, but the plaintiff rents property in the Waterbury/Watertown/Oakville area where animals are prohibited. The pit bull lived with the defendant in Oakville from approximately November 9, 2019, to June 28, 2022, or approximately two years and eight months.
From the beginning, and during the nearly three years that Scooby-Doo lived with them, the Rogers claim that they repeatedly asked the plaintiffs to reclaim ownership of Scooby-Doo, citing physical and financial circumstances; despite the plaintiffs’ numerous opportunities to do so. But they have repeatedly failed to take action. After a major back surgery, defendant Deborah Rodger claimed that she demanded that plaintiff take possession of Scooby-Doo or it would be relocated. Defendant Deborah Rodger further warned Plaintiff Rodger that Scooby-Doo would be relocated if Plaintiff Rodger was arrested or incarcerated. The defendant again claimed that the plaintiff had numerous opportunities to take possession of the property but repeatedly failed to do so.
Defendants Rogers and his family, other than the plaintiffs, were the pit bull’s sole providers during the nearly three years he lived with them in Oakville. Defendant Roger, not Plaintiff, provided Scooby with food, water, shelter, entertainment, and exercise. Defendant Rogers, not Plaintiff, let Scooby out and cleaned up afterward. Defendant Roger, and not the plaintiff, bore the costs associated with his care. The plaintiffs occasionally took Scooby overnight at their rental house, but other times left him with the Rogers couple in Oakville and purchased bags of food over nearly three years. Plaintiff never took possession of Scooby-Doo, furnished it, or provided compensation to Defendant Roger for the expenses incurred by it. Plaintiff simply wanted Defendant Roger to take care of Scooby indefinitely.
Sometime in 2021, Plaintiff Roger moved to live with Defendant Rogers at 25 Linden Street, while Plaintiff Rizzo returned to his parents’ home in Morris, Connecticut. There was no lease, oral or written, between Plaintiff Rogers and Defendant Rogers, and he paid no rent or utilities. Although Plaintiff Roger lived with Scooby-Doo, the Roger couple remained Scooby-Doo’s exclusive suppliers. Defendant Rogers continues to bear the costs of his care. The defendant’s affidavit was accompanied by defendant Deborah Roger’s order history from Chewy.com, an online provider of food and toys for Scooby-Doo.
Sometime between May and June 2022, plaintiff Rogers learned of the warrant for his arrest and fled defendant Rogers’ home, leaving behind all of his personal property, including Scooby-Doo. In addition to fleeing and attempting to evade arrest warrants, plaintiff Rodger provided his defense attorneys with forged documents indicating that he was killed during an operation in Ukraine. Attachment B is a transcript state v. Rogercase number U04W-CR16-0436674-S, in which the attorneys and the court (Papastavros, J.) to discuss and attempt to verify said completely fabricated documents. Currently, none of the defendants own pit bulls…
Here’s a quick summary of the legal analysis, despite the lengthy opinion:
Here, Scooby-Doo is left in the care of the defendants…. Defendant Rogers…claimed that plaintiffs owned pit bulls, as their sworn testimony demonstrated. Plaintiffs’ failure to act on Defendants’ demands…suggests their intention to abandon Scooby-Doo….
[I]It was Defendant Rogers, not Plaintiff, who had the necessary preemptive interest in possession. It goes against common sense to leave your pet with someone else and ask them to provide food, shelter, medical care, and other pet-related needs while trying to evade the law by going “underground.” Defendant Rogers’ possessory interest in Scooby prevented the plaintiffs from establishing the elements necessary to maintain a replevin action or to convert an action because they were unable to prove that they had superior possession of Scooby….
Additionally, the plaintiff requested that the court return Scooby-Doo to defendant Rogers’ home in Oakville because the plaintiff was physically unable to possess it. This court cannot create a form of “indentured servitude” with respect to the dog by requiring Defendant Rogers to once again continue to unlawfully possess Scooby-Doo and continue to care for, pay all expenses, medical, food or other expenses indefinitely until Plaintiff Rizzo moves to a A residence that would allow her to have pets, or until Plaintiff Roger is released from Department of Corrections custody and relocated to a suitable residence that would allow him to have Scooby-Doo. It would be a grave injustice for the court to order Defendant Rogers to provide Scooby with housing, food, medical care, and multiple daily bathroom breaks without the time, desire, or ability to do so….
