Jennings v. Shauck
| Decision Date | 20 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 123,495 |
| Parties | Dave JENNINGS and Emily McLeod, Appellants, v. Elizabeth SHAUCK, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Isherwood:
Emily McLeod and Dave Jennings appeal from the district court's order quieting title to a champion show dog named Oscar. Following a series of hearings initially slated to address the motion for preliminary injunction filed by Oscar's breeder, Elizabeth (Betsy) Shauck, the district court went several steps further and held that Betsy was Oscar's sole, rightful owner. Emily and Dave assert this was erroneous because the district court failed to provide them with notice of its intent to consolidate the preliminary injunction proceeding with a trial on the merits. We agree. We also find that the court erred as a matter of law by misapplying the common law rules related to ownership of personal property. The court's flawed approach resulted in prejudice to Emily and Dave by depriving them of their rightful ownership interest in Oscar.
Because a proper application of the law regarding ownership illuminates Emily and Dave's status as owners of Oscar with possessory and decision-making interests equal to that of Betsy, this case must be remanded for enforcement of those rights.
Emily and Dave filed a Petition to Quiet Title against Betsy in September 2019. The subject of the petition was a Cane Corso show dog named Oscar. Emily and Dave claimed title and ownership of Oscar but noted that Betsy similarly claimed ownership over him. The couple requested the district court to issue an order finding title and ownership of Oscar rested solely with them. Betsy responded and asserted that Emily and Dave stole Oscar from her. She also counterclaimed for breach of contract, replevin, conversion, and quiet title, sought a temporary restraining order, and asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction ordering the immediate return of Oscar.
Both sides agreed that they formed an agreement pertaining to Oscar's ownership, but strongly disagreed as to the precise terms of that arrangement. Emily and Dave claimed that Betsy asked them to care for Oscar and they agreed to do so with the understanding that he would be their full-time pet, but Betsy could sometimes enter him into shows. They acknowledged they agreed not to neuter Oscar "so that it would be possible for [Betsy] to show Oscar if it turned out that showing him was a good option." Emily and Dave then claimed that Betsy refused to return Oscar to them following a dog show in 2019 and simply informed them Oscar would be living with someone in Maryland for the next several years while she took him to dog shows whenever she desired. Emily and Dave responded to the news by traveling a great distance to "reacquire possession of Oscar" in September 2019.
Not surprisingly, Betsy viewed the parties’ arrangement through a different lens. She claimed that Emily and Dave merely agreed to provide a "guardian" or pet home for Oscar which simply ensured he received ordinary daily care. Under Betsy's interpretation of the agreement, she retained ownership, control, and the decision-making authority over all aspects of Oscar's training, boarding, showing, and breeding for the duration of his potential "show" career. She also noted that she agreed to be responsible for the expenses incurred in relation to that endeavor. Betsy further asserted that the parties agreed that when Oscar's show career ended, he would retire as a pet to Emily and Dave and ownership would transfer to them at that time. According to Betsy, Emily and Dave adhered to the terms of this agreement for a couple of years but then began objecting to how Oscar was handled when outside their care. Their discontent peaked in September 2019 and culminated in Dave's trek to Virginia to surreptitiously reclaim Oscar from a show.
In response to Betsy's filings, the court issued a notice of hearing specifically advising the parties of its intent to address her request for a preliminary injunction in April 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic required a continuance of the matter, so the hearing did not ultimately begin until October 14, 2020, and was then heard over the course of three separate days.
Before the hearing, the parties exchanged detailed witness and exhibits lists, and filed trial briefs devoted to the issue of Betsy's request for a preliminary injunction and the analytical standards governing the same. Because a litigant pursuing such relief must show a likelihood of success on the merits of his or her claim, the parties also discussed the merits of Betsy's counterclaims. In their trial brief, Emily and Dave also argued that the statute of frauds prohibited Betsy "from attempting to enforce her alleged agreement" because it was not reduced to writing and would take more than one year to complete.
Throughout the case, the parties distinguished between "pet homes" and "guardian homes." A pet home, also called a companion home or non-breeding home, is where a dog goes to be a pet. By contrast, a guardian home, also called a show home, is a home where a dog lives when it is not being used for some other purpose like showing or breeding. Although guardian home agreements differ, they can involve co-ownership of a dog with each party having different rights and responsibilities. A guardian home arrangement may be beneficial for a person who could not otherwise afford a purebred dog, or for a person who is interested in exploring participation with show dogs but prefers to first work with and learn from someone with greater experience in the activity. Finally, if a dog performs well at shows, it may be campaigned. Campaigns can involve extensive travel and showing and may require a dog to be absent from its guardian home for a year or two.
Over the extended course of the hearing on Betsy's request, several people testified that guardian and pet home agreements were common. They also asserted that every situation was different; thus, such agreements were usually reduced to writing.
By virtue of the testimony adduced, the court learned that Emily first became acquainted with Betsy and her husband, Dennis, through her work as an animal chiropractor. Betsy worked full time as a railroad engineer, but owned and bred Cane Corso dogs, like Oscar, as a hobby. When Betsy's dog Gabby had a litter of puppies, Emily provided chiropractic care for Gabby and the litter. Emily and Dave spent a lot of time with the puppies so that in exchange for the chiropractic care, Betsy sold one of the puppies, Gracyn, to the couple for the cost of her out-of-pocket veterinary expenses related to Gracyn. Dave testified that Betsy intended for Gracyn to be a gift, but he and Emily offered her money to cover her hard costs because they were not comfortable receiving something for nothing. There was no written contract covering Betsy's transfer of Gracyn to Emily and Dave.
Betsy acknowledged that she typically enters into written contracts with people who purchase her dogs. Under the terms of her standard contract, female dogs must be spayed and male dogs are required to carry a limited registration with the American Kennel Club (AKC) and are not allowed to be bred. According to Betsy she deviated from this practice with Emily and Dave for Gracyn because she trusted them.
The friendship between Betsy, Dennis, Emily, and Dave continued to flourish. Betsy had a big back yard, so Emily and Dave visited so that Gracyn could exercise and play with Betsy's other puppies. Emily and Dave were present when Gabby had another litter of puppies in May 2017; Oscar was one of the puppies born into that litter. The couple continued visiting Betsy and Dennis after Oscar was born and Emily provided chiropractic care for the litter.
Unfortunately, 2017 also saw a marked decline in Dennis’ health. By summertime, it presented quite a challenge for Betsy to tend to his needs and provide adequate care for all the dogs. Emily and Dave continued to lend their assistance and in the fall of that year the subject of Emily and Dave assuming care of Oscar arose. The parties have varying recollections of the conversation on this subject, so each will be summarized.
Betsy testified that she and Dennis met with Emily and Dave when Oscar was four months old and talked about them potentially taking the dog. She asserted that she stressed to Emily and Dave that she wanted to show Oscar "to his maximum potential." Betsy admitted that a dog's potential is not always known at such a young age but made sure the couple understood every possible scenario that could happen with Oscar. She also wanted them to understand that Oscar was potentially campaignable, and that such an endeavor could entail long periods away from Emily and Dave so Oscar could reside with a handler for at least a year. Betsy also claimed they covered breeding rights and the couple's obligation to make the dog available to her for breeding.
According to the terms testified to by Betsy, she would cover Oscar's breeding, handling, and showing costs and then Oscar would return to Emily and Dave as their permanent pet once his show career ended. The parties also allegedly agreed to equally split stud fees generated from breeding. Although Betsy entered into written contracts covering the other dogs in Oscar's litter, she did not draw one up for Oscar. Rather, in this instance, despite believing Oscar had remarkable potential, she simply asked whether Emily and Dave wanted to reduce their agreement to writing. The couple allegedly declined with the claim that such formalities were unnecessary. Emily and Dave did not pay Betsy any money for Oscar.
Dave offered a different version of events. According to him, Dennis and Betsy asked him and Emily to take Oscar as a pet because their circumstances demanded that they find a new home for him. Dave asserted that Betsy requested they not neuter Oscar because she may opt to return...
To continue reading
Request your trial