3 court rulings settle dog dispute (dog lovers must read)

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.omaha.com/article/20091230/NEWS01/712309890

By Leslie Reed WORLD-HERALD BUREAU

LINCOLN — A four-pound, black-and-tan Chihuahua named Lola is at the center of a dog fight that required the Nebraska Court of Appeals to resolve.

“It's a mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world,” as the Kinks sang of another Lola.

Writing for the court, Judge Richard Sievers described the case Tuesday as “the saga of Lola, the left-behind but apparently much-loved Chihuahua dog, that the parties have litigated through three levels of our judicial system.”

The case began Aug. 22, 2007, when Heather Linville of Lincoln asked her friends Travis Derr and Natasha Combs to care for her dog for the weekend.

Her new apartment complex didn't allow dogs, and she said she needed time to make arrangements for her little pet. She left one bag of dog food.

More then 10 months passed before Linville asked to get Lola back. By that time, Derr and Combs said they wanted to keep the dog.

FULL story at link.

[MadMaddie]

1. I think the couple should have been able to keep the dog

The dog owner took advantage of the couple, I think the courts are wrong on this one.

If she would have left her dog at a dog care facility would the courts have ruled the same way? I doubt it, the facility would be able to charge theft of services and abandonment of a pet. (something like that)

[TorchTheWitch]

2. I've read the article 3 times and can't find anything about who got the dog

Lots of blah, blah, blah about the cost of food and boarding, but I don't see anything at all where the last judge ruled in favor of giving the dog back to Linville or letting the couple keep it.

I think the couple should have been able to keep the dog since Linville's actions clearly showed she didn't care about it or the fact that the couple she fousted it on were paying out of their own pocket for its wellfare.

And I still can't figure out where the hell in the article it mentions what the hell the final ruling was on who got custody of the dog.

[blonndee]

3. It wasn't about custody of the dog.

. . .

After Linville summoned police to retrieve the dog, Derr and Combs filed a small-claims court case, asking to be paid $2,700 for boarding the animal for 320 days.

Lancaster County Judge Susan Strong ruled in favor of Derr and Combs, a decision later upheld by District Judge Steven Burns.

The appeals court overturned the $2,700 judgment in a 3-0 ruling. The court said Derr and Combs did not ask for compensation when they agreed to keep the dog for the weekend. They should have notified Linville if they were no longer willing to keep Lola for free.

The court said they were entitled only to reimbursement for a $152.98 veterinarian's bill.

While they might also have been able to claim reimbursement for the dog food they bought, the court said, they submitted no evidence on how much they spent on dog food.

Instead, Derr and Combs, who did not have an attorney, presented evidence from area kennels on the cost of boarding a dog in the Lincoln area — a range of $3,800 to $7,700 for 320 nights.

“We, and the trial court, could only speculate about the actual cost of dog food for a Chihuaua, even if we were to attempt to deduce such cost from the evidence introduced about the cost for boarding dogs — which clearly is different than the cost of feeding a little dog such as Lola,” Sievers wrote.

Derr and Combs could not be reached for comment; Linville did not immediately return a reporter's phone call.

According to Lancaster County court records, Derr and Combs heard little from Linville after she dropped off Lola on Aug. 23, 2007.

Linville took Lola to the vet on Oct. 17, 2007, and a friend returned the Chihuahua to Derr and Combs the next day.

Linville gave the two a gift basket and gift certificate in December 2007 but did not contact them again until June 2008, when she called to say she had scheduled a veterinary appointment for the dog.

Derr and Combs told Linville they felt she had abandoned Lola and they were going to keep the dog. Combs said Linville thanked them for giving Lola a good home.

The two took Lola to the vet in July 2008. Linville called Lincoln police July 8, alleging “theft by possession and control.” Police officers retrieved the dog.

Linville acknowledged that she should have contacted Derr and Combs more often, but she did not intend to abandon her pet.

Wrote Sievers: “We are under no illusion that we have accomplished perfect ‘justice' between these three litigants,'' saying the court ruled on the basis of the evidence and law.

[damntexdem]

4. Ai, Chihuahua!

Doggone it.

[LiberalFighter]

5. Linville couldn't be that interested in her dog if she only checked

on the dog just a few times in almost 1 year.

[LiberalFighter]

6. The court should had least come up with a reasonable cost for dog food.

The judges probably not that competent if they can't do that.

For a 4 pounder a 1/4 cup per day minimum.