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.
