Brandy, You’re A Fine Dog

The Rhode Island Superior Court found that the best interests of a dog lay with the plaintiff in an ownership dispute

Before this Court is Plaintiff Haley Bunker’s (Ms. Bunker or Plaintiff) request for a writ of replevin seeking the recovery of Brandy, an adopted dog described as a Basenji-Pitbull mix, from Defendant Nicholas Boyd (Mr. Boyd or Defendant). This Court would first like to recognize the difficulty in cases involving canis lupus familiaris, or “man’s best friend.” The Court recognizes the contentious nature of cases involving pets and in particular dogs because of the emotional attachment that develops between a dog and its owner. The relationship between dog and man is beautifully articulated by Mr. Kyle in the children’s novel, Where the Red Fern Grows…

The parties were in a relationship when Brandy was adopted

In February of 2020, Ms. Bunker and Mr. Boyd unamicably ended their dating relationship. (Jan. 5 Tr. 2:3-5; Jan. 12 Tr. 21:13-20.) Mr. Boyd testified that immediately upon the relationship ending between himself and Ms. Bunker he took Brandy with him. (Jan. 12 Tr. 21:21-24.) Brandy stayed solely with him for about three to four weeks after the break-up. Id. at 22:4-5; Jan. 5 Tr. 34:16-17. At some point after this stay, Mr. Boyd spoke with Ms. Bunker and the two engaged in a Brandy time-share agreement. (Jan. 12 Tr. 22:6-11.) He testified that the time-share arrangement was his idea. Id. at 22:9-16. Ms. Bunker testified that she allowed the time-share arrangement because she knew that Mr. Boyd loved Brandy and that Brandy loved him. (Jan. 5 Tr. 34:18-20.) She also stated that she wanted them to be able to spend time together. Id.

According to Mr. Boyd, Ms. Bunker sent him a text message stating that Brandy was now his. (Hr’g Tr. 8:14-25, Jan. 18, 2024 (Jan. 18 Tr.)) Mr. Boyd took this to mean that moving forward the decision making for Brandy was his. Id. at 8:14-25.

Best interests of Brandy

Here, most of the factors that New York State courts use to analyze the “best interest” of the companion animal standard as articulated in L.B. v. C.C.B, go in neither party’s favor. Here, both parties are willing, able, and are fit to take care of Brandy. See Jan. 5 Tr. 74:13-23; see also Jan. 12 Tr. 19:25-21:11. Neither Ms. Bunker nor Mr. Boyd presented facts regarding their respective home environments. However, there are two factors that favor Ms. Bunker. Those factors go to show that Ms. Bunker has a probability of success on showing that Brandy staying with her is in Brandy’s best interest. The two factors in Ms. Bunker’s favor is that she has made veterinary decisions regarding Brandy and the fact that she can spend more time with Brandy than Mr. Boyd can. Mr. Boyd testified that he spends more than forty hours per week working and has to leave Brandy with a roommate during those hours. Furthermore, Ms. Bunker has shown that she was heavily involved in Brandy’s health and veterinary care decisions through the furnishing of Animal Hospital records and her scheduling of veterinary appointments. Although Mr. Boyd attended most of the Animal Hospital appointments, he did not schedule them and he did not provide any evidence showing that he made any veterinary decisions regarding Brandy during the time of the relationship.

Therefore, because Ms. Bunker has more time to spend with Brandy and because she was heavily involved in Brandy’s health and veterinary care decisions, this Court finds that Ms. Bunker has shown by a fair preponderance of the evidence that having ownership over Brandy is in the best interest of both Ms. Bunker and Brandy.

Conclusion

Because the Court has conducted a de novo trial on the merits, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for a writ of replevin is moot and, therefore, Plaintiff’s request for a writ of replevin is DENIED.

However, Ms. Bunker has shown her superior claim to Brandy by a fair preponderance of the evidence and, as such, this Court finds that judgment shall enter for Plaintiff on her claim for declaratory relief to establish her right of ownership over Brandy.

This Court therefore DECLARES that Ms. Bunker is Brandy’s rightful owner and, as Brandy’s rightful owner, Ms. Bunker is entitled to regain immediate possession of Brandy from Mr. Boyd.

(Mike Frisch)