[Ojai]

From OP:

"Earlier this year, breeder/keeper said she was going to Texas and dropped Lily off with Kay. Kay was scheduled to go to Hawaii to see her daughter for a month. So my sister and I volunteered to keep Lily.

"Well, after two months had gone by, the breeder never called Kay for Lily. Kay offered to let us keep Lily, saying it was good she was in a stable environment where she wasn't constantly being passed back and forth. She actually told breeder this a month ago.

"Four months have passed and today we got the worst phone call ever: breeder called and wanted Lily back. Not only that, but she had filed theft charges against Kay. She also called my sister and left a horrible, threatening message, then had a friend of her's call and leave a message telling us we had 24 hours to return Lily to her rightful owner, and that the breeder was an excellent person who had never neglected or hurt any animal. (Why did she even feel the need to defend her?!)

"The police officer said we had to give her back, even though Kay purchased her 6 years ago and has paper work. The officer said the woman was psychotic ..."

Does this sound like a responsible breeder? Bouncing a dog back and forth, and ignoring its whereabouts for four months? Further, Kay was not the original owner; Kay's daughter was, and any "contract" as referenced would have been between the breeder and Kay's daughter, not the breeder and Kay. Yet Kay assumed the responsibility of ownership from her daughter, with a some sort of mutually agreed upon swapping back and forth between Kay and the breeder. If these facts are accurate, they would nullify any contract language to the contrary, if such exists, as would the four-month abandonment of Lily.

This matter is now being handled privately, so opinions based on speculation are not helpful during the process of ascertaining the facts. We lawyers like actual facts. I would request patience, please.