[katie_n_me]

It looks like you’re in a real mess; I sure feel for you.

I have some thoughts and advice that may be helpful. Please understand that I am not an attorney, and the advice I will share should not be relied upon as legal advice and you should consult with an attorney in your area for legal advice, if you want your dog back. With that said, here are my thoughts.

It seems like you clearly intended to give this dog away permanently based on your initial post.

However, if this was not your intention and you just wanted this woman to care for this dog temporarily until you were able to yourself, then bailment law seems to apply. Therefore, pursuant to bailment law, upon your demand, the dog would have to be relinquished or a wrongful misappropriation of your dog (property) could have occurred, ergo, embezzlement a.k.a. theft/larceny. If this is the case, you would have the right to use applicable force to retain your dog (property), contact the police as you would for stolen property or pursue legal action.

If it was your intention to give your dog away permanently, then it seems that standard gift law would apply. The primary elements for which are: (1) donative intent on the part of the donor (you), (2) delivery and (3) acceptance by the donee (woman). In order for this gift to be effective all 3 of these elements must exist, most importantly, as seems to be the case here, donative intent. This is important because based on my reading it does not seem you were able to form donative intent due to your extenuating circumstances (courts would look at the nature of the gift-its importance in this instance-and would construe donative intent and applicable law narrowly because of the clear importance of this dog to you, which you raised for 12 years).

Additionally, fraud can render a gift ineffective. For example, if you understood that this woman would take good care of your dog and then it became clear that this was a misrepresentation of fact (i.e., you entered the living room AFTER you wrote what she fraudulently induced you to write. Meaning that she misrepresented the fact that she would take good care of your dog so you would write the note BEFORE she allowed you to see her home-clear evidence to the contrary.), the gift would be ineffective. Thus, title of the property (your dog) could not have transferred, meaning you still own the dog.

On top of all these possible scenarios, pets, such as dogs, can be considered in your jurisdiction human/”human-like” for different purposes. For example, there have been some “wrongful death” cases where dogs died and the damages were formulated in a manner that tracks more similarly to wrongful death suit damages for humans then it does for damages established for destruction of property, which dogs have historically been considered. The trend seems to be moving away from considering dogs as property. Consider the recent rescue effort for the dog stuck in the flooded LA River in CA.

Another way this similarity between dogs and humans is seen is in the defense of others where a dog or human is defended (as an example, the ability to rescue). Because of this, you might be able to defend your dog more like a person rather than property. Also, when exigent circumstances exist, one person can, for example, enter the home of a stranger, even forcefully, if they saw the home on fire and entered with the intent to help the people inside. This could mean that if you had a reasonable belief that your dog, or even possibly another dog, was in immediate danger, you could use reasonable force you believe reasonably necessary to protect that dog.

Now that I’ve informed you of my thoughts, it does seem you face some difficulties. For example, chances are if you use this information to contact your local police requesting that they assist you to get your dog (your property), they will likely not know what I have stated here. So, you will have to explain to them the facts as you’ve presented them considering what I have said: You intended to give your dog to this lady. There are extenuating circumstances and you were incapable of possessing the requisite intent, therefore, you were unable to effectively give this dog as a gift. Also explain, how you were fraudulently deceived, voiding the gift (as explained above). You want your dog returned immediately. You have requested return of your dog (do it, if you haven’t) and she has refused. As a result, she has your stolen your property which you still desire to possess and request their assistance. If, in this process, she references the “note” which has your signature, state the following: (1) As stated, a gift must have the requisite donative intent, which as a result of the extenuating circumstances (duress), did not exist; (2) As stated, due to the fraudulent misrepresentation, the gift was not effective (you didn’t “give it” to her). Reassert your position-you want your property back.

It might not be advisable, despite what I have said, to try something on your own using force to get your dog back. The animal rescue groups may help you, as others have stated. The only other option I can think of is legal action (I would suspect this would be free considering your financial position). The action would be essentially the same, i.e., there was no gift, she wrongfully possesses your property, you want it returned immediately and you want the potential danger which exists for your dog alleviated by the court.

Not sure how far you want to take this or even if you want your dog back for sure. Maybe if you just throw some of these terms around with the woman she’ll relinquish your dog. She may well be aware of some legality since she had you write the “note” and may, then, reconsider her position.

I really tried to be of some help. I hope I was and wasn’t confusing. I have to confess, my son, a descendant of Clarence Darrow, did this (LOL).

I can tell that Ciera means a lot to you and I wish the best outcome for you all. Get your dog back, if that’s what you want.

I wish you all the best.