Scooby Dooby Doo, Whose Are You?

In Roger v. Keller, which was decided earlier this month by Waterbury, Connecticut trial court judge Robert D’Andrea, the case involved plaintiffs who had a pit bull named Scooby. They entrusted Scooby to the care of defendants, who were actually family members of the plaintiffs, for a period of three years. Despite the defendants’ repeated requests for the plaintiffs to take back Scooby, they ended up giving him away (the recipient is not clearly mentioned in the opinion). This led to the plaintiffs filing a lawsuit, claiming that their property rights had been violated:

Plaintiff Roger stated in an affidavit that on November 9, 2019, he found the pit bull abandoned in Waterbury and took possession of it the same day. However, instead of taking Scooby to their own apartment, the plaintiffs brought him to the home of defendants Deborah Roger and Phil Roger at 25 Linden Street, Oakville, Connecticut. The plaintiffs initially asked the Rogers to care for Scooby for a few weeks, which extended to months, and eventually to almost three years. Despite not living at 25 Linden Street, the plaintiffs rented a property in the Waterbury/Watertown/Oakville area where pets were not allowed. Scooby resided with the defendants in Oakville from November 9, 2019, to June 28, 2022, totaling approximately two years and eight months.

Throughout the duration of Scooby’s stay with them, the Rogers claim they repeatedly urged the plaintiffs to reclaim possession of Scooby due to their own physical and financial constraints. Despite multiple opportunities presented to them, the plaintiffs failed to take any action. Following a significant back surgery, defendant Deborah Roger insisted that the plaintiffs either retrieve Scooby or he would be rehomed. She also warned plaintiff Roger that Scooby would be rehomed if he was arrested or incarcerated. Despite these warnings, the plaintiffs did not take any steps to reclaim Scooby.

During the nearly three years that Scooby lived with the Rogers in Oakville, they were the primary caretakers for him, providing food, water, shelter, entertainment, and exercise. The defendants also took care of cleaning up after Scooby and incurred all costs associated with his care. Although the plaintiffs occasionally took Scooby for overnight stays at their rental properties, they predominantly left him in the care of the Rogers and only provided some bags of food over the years. At no point did the plaintiffs actively take responsibility for Scooby’s care or offer compensation to the Rogers for the expenses incurred. Their expectation was for the Rogers to care for Scooby indefinitely.

At some point in 2021, plaintiff Roger moved in with the defendant Rogers at 25 Linden Street while plaintiff Rizzo returned to her parents’ home in Morris, Connecticut. There was no formal lease agreement between plaintiff Roger and the defendants, and he did not contribute to rent or utilities. Even though plaintiff Roger resided with Scooby, the Rogers continued to be the primary caregivers for him, bearing all costs associated with his care. Attached to the defendants’ affidavit was defendant Deborah Roger’s order history from Chewy.com, an online vendor from which food and toys for Scooby were purchased.

Between May and June 2022, plaintiff Roger discovered a warrant for his arrest and fled from the defendant Rogers’ home, leaving behind all personal belongings, including Scooby. In an attempt to evade the warrant, plaintiff Roger provided his defense attorney with fabricated documents suggesting he had been killed in action in Ukraine. The court record of State v. Roger, Docket No. U04W-CR16-0436674-S, details the discussion between counsel and the court (Papastavros, J.) regarding these falsified documents. Currently, none of the defendants are in possession of Scooby….

Here is a brief overview of the legal analysis, although the full opinion is detailed:

In this case, Scooby was left in the care of the defendants…. The defendants, as evidenced by their sworn affidavit, repeatedly demanded that the plaintiffs reclaim possession of Scooby. The plaintiffs’ failure to respond to these demands indicates their intention to abandon Scooby….

The defendants have shown a superior possessory interest in Scooby, as opposed to the plaintiffs. It is unreasonable to leave your pet with others and expect them to meet all of its needs, including food, shelter, and medical care, while attempting to evade legal consequences. Given the defendants’ possessory interest in Scooby, the plaintiffs cannot establish the necessary elements to support a claim for replevin or conversion, as they cannot prove a superior possessory right to Scooby….

Furthermore, the plaintiffs have requested the court to return Scooby to the defendants’ residence in Oakville due to their physical inability to care for him. However, it would be unjust to impose the responsibility of housing, feeding, and providing medical care for Scooby on the defendants indefinitely. The court cannot force the defendants into a prolonged period of unwanted possession and care for Scooby until the plaintiffs are able to take him back. Such an order would be unjust to the defendants….