.
Feedback

Court: Think It's Your Dog? It's Not!

Troy and Hollye Dexter of Chatsworth fight courts to keep their adopted dog Stitch from being returned to the man who abandoned him on a highway.

Having been entangled in the Los Angeles court system for the past three years, on top of budget cuts no less, I can tell you that it is very difficult to find “justice” in the Justice System.

For those who haven’t been following our , my husband Troy and I adopted our dog Stitch years ago, only to later have the guy who claims to have previously owned him (but has no proof) sue us for over $25,000. Last year, we went to trial. The guy didn’t win a dime from us, but the judge did award him custody- due to a 200 year old law called the Lost Property Statute. “If you left your bicycle at the beach,” the judge said, “and then three weeks later you saw someone else riding it, you’d expect them to return your bike to you.” And we responded with the obvious. “Stitch is not a bicycle. He is a member of our family. And we would never leave him abandoned on a road like this guy apparently did.” We lost, then appealed, and here we are a year later.

Last Wednesday, July 11th,  the appellate division of Los Angeles Superior court filed a preliminary ruling, declaring that they are upholding the Chatsworth Superior court ruling (meaning we LOST again) due to a technicality in paperwork (the fact that there is no court reporter record, because in lower jurisdiction hearings- there is no court reporter!)

In appeals you can not re-try your case, therefore, a court reporter transcript was not necessary for appeals. Your only way of winning is to prove that the law was misapplied in your ruling. Our attorney Jill Ryther filed a beautiful, comprehensive brief proving the Lost Property Statute was misapplied in our case- as it should not apply to family pets. She used numerous other cases to support her argument. Basically the judges refused to even read it. They knew a month ago, when they postponed our first hearing date, that we had no court reporter. Why did they delay our case, only to throw it out later? My opinion- this is politics, plain and simple.

Every judge we’ve dealt with (and there have been four, total) has tried to sidestep this issue. Overturning a centuries-old law is a controversial, boat-rocking move, and none have been bold enough to take it on.

We were terribly depressed last week. But then a miraculous thing happened. People all over the country began contacting us, supporting us. Don’t give up! They said. We’ve got your back. Donations for our legal fund began to come in. People sent photos of their pets in solidarity with Stitch (now posted on Stitchy’s facebook page). We knew then that we could, and must, continue to fight. People all over the world are invested in this. A win for Stitch is a win for pet owners everywhere.

Shortly after, Fox 11 news contacted us and wanted to feature our story. On Friday, July 13, we were on the news. See link to watch our segment (and hear Stitchy snoring through it). Also, the L.A. Times contacted me and said they will be running our story.

Our attorney is filing a writ to the higher court- the Federal Appeals Court. Stitch is currently in our possession and that is where he will stay. We will never give up on him!

We want pet lovers everywhere to know that their dogs and cats can not be ripped from their families by some stupid antiquated law which equates our dogs to property, like a bicycle. Our dogs are not property! Troy and I will continue to fight until the courts hear us.

Hollye Dexter July 16, 2012 at 01:23 pm
Again Leigh, you aren't involved in our case, don't know all the details. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I would hold back on telling others what their mistakes are, when you don't have all the facts.
I am very proud of the job my attorney did. Her briefs were powerful, and she was amazing in court. She is whip smart, and cares deeply about the plight of animals. And there are few attorneys in Los Angeles who specialize in Animal Law. Actually I think there are three, and I'm assuming you aren't one of them?
Denise July 16, 2012 at 01:31 pm
As you seem to know so much more than the Dexter's attorney why don't you do something instead of pointing out their mistakes. Are you a practicing attorney?
Leigh Datzker July 16, 2012 at 01:36 pm
Hollye,
You needed an experienced litigator, not some neophyte. Your case was lost on civil procedure, not the law. You could have exposed the ownership issue on a Summary Judgment motion and won there, or on a hearing for a Preliminary Injunction, which would have put you in Unlimited jurisdiction. These hearings would have educated your judge and his research clerk as well. These hearings also would have put the Plaintiff is a more malleable settlement position.
Denise July 16, 2012 at 01:49 pm
There you go again. Holley- block this guy. He is the the type that thinks they know everything and everyone else is clueless. I don't see him offering his obviously superior legal skills. I think I'll Google him.
I do have an issue with you (Hollye) letting your dogs off leash on the trails. I take my German Shephards with me hiking in the hills on he trails behind my house. They are ALWAYS on leash but we come across people like you every time. There are leash laws for a reason. I have been bitten by off leash dogs charging my dogs. Please keep your dogs leashed.
Carole Raschella July 16, 2012 at 01:51 pm
Hollye, if you have not contacted atty Michael Rotsten, I suggest you at least give him a call. He does nothing but animal cases, and did a brilliant job for me in a case involving my dog. I can't say enough good things about him. He's in Encino.
Leigh Datzker July 16, 2012 at 01:52 pm
Denise,
The case has been tried and there is no record of the trial, so there is little I could do. I have been in practice since 1982 and have a long history of litigation experience in construction, employment, business, real estate, and family law as well as extensive law and motion practice. I regularly handle cases in the valley courts as well.
Leigh Datzker July 16, 2012 at 02:00 pm
Denise, while you are Googling, I have also handled cases recovering animals for their owners under an equitable theory called, "Replevin," which also includes using animal statutes put into effect in California in the 1860's...(California was admitted to the Union on 9-9-1850)
Denise July 16, 2012 at 02:02 pm
I did and youre not as stellar as you seem to think.
edoyle July 16, 2012 at 02:02 pm
None of you have ANY CLUE what this family has been through, so while you are all entitled to your opinion, it really doesn't matter what you think went wrong, what you think they should or shouldn't do. They are in this battle, they are fighting for their beloved dog. She is merely advising the community on properly adopting a pet and feeling safe that it is indeed their dog.
Denise July 16, 2012 at 02:07 pm
Then stop telling them what they did should have done. You don't think they have enough on their plate than to listen to some random attorney coach after the game is over?
Carol July 16, 2012 at 03:00 pm
Leigh, if you cannot be constructive you should shut up.
Leigh Datzker July 16, 2012 at 03:13 pm
Carol,
When you post a blog you do so to elicit comments. Hollye's posting made no sense to me coupled with my review of the Appellate Division's tenative on July 11. It appeared to me that she was being misinformed on a myriad of issues, so I rightfully commented and gave her direction. She appears to be enamored with an attorney and she needs to hear suggestions about getting a more experienced one as Ms. Raschella suggested. I am just trying to fathom what her attorney did, so I can discern some type of remedy here. Sometimes you need a second opinion of an experienced indiviudal. Clearly, I would like to see the dog with Hollye's family, but it is frustrating when they make the wrong decisions in rederssing this issue. Hollye should refer to Stich as a 'he' and not an 'it.' to make her point as well.
HotDog July 16, 2012 at 04:13 pm
I think Atty. Datzker has been as constructive as he could be (considering his profession). He understands the hierarchy of the court system. And although it's not a huge leap (since the appellate panel stated as much in its decision), he understands the reason why the case was rejected. It appears there doesn't seem to be much in the way of recourse at this point; as you go up the line, your chances of getting your case heard decrease exponentially. Although Stitch's owners are (against all odds) asserting that a companion pet is not property under the existing statute, it seems that a litigator experienced in property law might have been the better choice for this trial, particularly since that was lynchpin of the plaintiff's case. I have not Googled Atty. Datzker, so I have no idea whether he would have been the right person for the job. He hasn't applied for it either.
Finally, when a story is published in a public forum such as Patch, the author tacitly agrees to expose his/her ideas to public scrutiny. Inviting someone to "shut up" is undoubtedly the least constructive contribution to the dialog one could make.
Julia Morrow, CMT/CMLDT July 16, 2012 at 06:17 pm
Hollye, You are not required to respond to anyone's post if they continue to be negative! Please know the rest of us are with you.
Hollye Dexter July 16, 2012 at 08:36 pm
Thank you Julia.
Hollye Dexter July 16, 2012 at 08:42 pm
I'll just make one final comment, and that is, that each of us views life through our own filters. All we can do is live to the best of our ability, and do what we feel is the right thing. My husband and I have let our conscience guide us, and have done what we believe is in Stitch's best interest, not our own. ( Believe me, this battle has not been in our best interest, personally).
For those of you who are critical of our actions, I invite you to do what you feel is right in your own lives, and we will do what we feel is right. We don't want to engage in any negativity or war or words. We just want to keep our dog safe, and help others who adopt pets, so they never have to go through this. Peace to all.
madge woods July 16, 2012 at 08:46 pm
This is a very complicated case with many variables and who owned the dog. The Dexters had given back the dog and for two years heard nothing and was never contacted. it is a convoluted case. I do agree that if they proceed they need an appellate lawyer who does this day in and day out if they expect to win. This was not a great case from the beginning as it has many questionable tactics on both sides.
Denise July 16, 2012 at 08:58 pm
I want you and your family to know my family (which includes my two dogs, cat, and many fish) are all on your side and wish nothing but the best for you and your family. My only issue is that you let your dogs off leash. Please keep us in the loop we care.
ValleyVic July 16, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Hollye--I just want to offer another kind note of support. Don't let the people being negative, even if well-intentioned, get you down. You will prevail, and Stitch is one lucky pup to have found so much love and his forever home with you all. I hope your story will help others who end up in a similar situation. Sending you lots of encouragement and good energy.
ValleyVic July 16, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Sorry, John S., but your idea that dogs should run free, albeit a lovely notion, is not one based in the real world, or one of a responsible pet owner. The previous owner was clearly unfit and his pet suffered from it. Stitch deserves to be with a loving, responsible family, the one he currently and who did everything right--adopting him from a shelter (they didn't keep a lost dog of a neighbors--yeesh, where did you come up with some of this?). P.S. Most laws for dogs and pet ownership are for the safety of the pet and public--licenses and tags for example. In Europe and the UK, it's mostly illegal to have a pet if you don't microchip them. As for vaccines, it is a personal decision, but most people vaccinate for their pet's health and safety--I highly doubt this pup wasn't vaccinated for "allergy" issues.
Hollye Dexter July 16, 2012 at 11:09 pm
Thank you valley Vic! That means a lot.
Hollye Dexter July 16, 2012 at 11:12 pm
Hi Denise,
We used to hike on private property where we took our dogs on leash, and then let them off for portions of the trail so they could play and romp. We rarely saw other people or dogs, but when we did, we put our dogs back on leash. Our dogs were friendly and have never attacked other dogs. ( although I have had my dogs attacked while on leash, by other dogs off leash). We never let Stitch off leash. He is too small and vulnerable. Thanks for the support.
Hollye Dexter July 16, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Thank you Vic- it means a lot!
Katrynas July 17, 2012 at 02:59 pm
Dearest Hollye,
In reading all of these comments, one thing comes to mind STITCH! I am behind you 100%, I am not able to give monetarily I am here to support you & your family completely!! If you could post here when and where you will need support next, I am sure we will all be there for you, your family & of course STITCH, he is so blessed to have such a wonderful family to love and care for him,, I BEG YOU PLEASE DON'T EVER GIVE UP HOLLYE, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!!! God Bless you and your family!!! The ex-owner will get what is coming to him!! Its called Karma!!
Leigh Datzker July 17, 2012 at 05:47 pm
Here's an easy way to keep your dog: If the lower court gave you a money judgment against the Plaintiff for your care and custody of the dog and the judgment has not been paid, you can apply for a Writ of Execution and then attach the dog for payment of the money ordered. Very simple procedure and costs $25.00 plus the sheriff's fees.
Katrynas July 17, 2012 at 06:00 pm
Hollye, putting you, your family and Stitch on prayers here at my work and sending you to a prayer list that goes through out the world. God does work miracles!!
PAULA SHENE July 17, 2012 at 08:25 pm
The attorney that gave you advice - you may want to make note and discuss with your lawyer - also the other points brought up discuss those also with your lawyer - you need all the ammunition you can use - and anything that pertains to your court system that you can use - go for it. I have dogs and understand that this is an archaic law that needs addressing. Best and prayers
Denise July 18, 2012 at 02:33 am
Love this. I hope you can do it.
Denise July 18, 2012 at 02:37 am
Hey Hollye,
No offense intended but if I had a nickel for every person who said their dogs are "friendly" well I'd be really well off. Friendly off leash dogs are the worst. They run up to the on leash dogs. It's a nightmare. please for the safety of all keep your dogs on their leash. Everyone.
Coco Giampa July 19, 2012 at 01:30 pm
Oh my goodness Hollye.... lot's of stuff going on with this blog since I last posted! Just want to get back on here, not to give you any advice... just my SUPPORT! Sending virtual kisses to Stitchy! xxx

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Northridge-Chatsworth Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jock June 10, 2013 at 09:29 am
We should be spending So Cal money to use the "LA river", diverting some to cisterns andRead More reservoirs. It no longer feeds a delta which must have been a very rich one 200 years ago. You are right, L.A. with it's huge population subsidizes most of State Taxes. That the Oil companies in the Central Valley are sucking up more water is no surprise. If we have several years of drought, we can drink 87 octane. We have been allowing water that falls here in L.A. to run into the ocean, saving little to none. We can go from 25-30" a year to 4. Suddenly on the 4 year we have high rates and rationing. Why ? Because it has always been the quick buck and expediency over thoughtful planning. in Israel, Masada is in one of the driest area's of the world. By channeling droplets of water, they were able to water a community of hundreds for years.
drew June 6, 2013 at 08:13 am
You will not want to miss this exciting band! They were on the cover of Entertainment Magazine inRead More Folsom, California. Awesome talent! Our hats go off to the men in black.