Blanton, Watson Dog Case Dismissed

UPDATE: 1:31pm, Thursday, February 28, 2013

The ongoing dispute over a chihuahua that involves an Easley City Councilman, his wife and an Easley family is over – for now.

Judge Tommy Wall dismissed the case in magistrate's court today, ruling that the way the case had been filed against Councilman Dave Watson and his wife – a claim and delivery case - did not apply to the situation.

“They have a right to refile,” Wall said, of Keith and Kerri Blanton.

The two parties have been fighting over the ownership of chihuahua found in May of 2012.

The dog the Blanton family refers to as Lucy went missing over Mother's Day weekend last year. Dave and Trish Watson found the dog on Mother's Day on their porch.

The Blantons discovered their dog had been found in September. Since then, the two parties have been arguing over who the dog belongs to and the amount of money the Watsons would like to be reimbursed for caring for the dog, who they call Gracie.

The Watsons claim the dog had been abused prior to their finding of it, an allegation the Blantons have denied.

The two parties' day in court began with Attorney Ryan L. Beasley, the Watsons' attorney, asking the judge to dismiss the case.

The Blantons' attorney James O'Connell argued that ownership of the dog was not in question and that all that was at issue was the amount of damages.

“The Watsons have admitted ownership to the Blantons,” O'Connell said. “You can't claim they're owners and then ask for money.”

He argued that the Watsons should only be reimbursed for expenses incurred for just three days, claiming the Watsons violated the law by not contacting a magistrate about finding the dog, as required by law.

Citing case law that both attorneys agreed applied to some degree in the case, Wall granted the motion to dismiss.

O'Connell said the case had been filed properly.

“We've done everything right,” he said.

Wall told the parties and their counsels that damages could be determined quickly.

Wall offered O'Connell a chance to amend the action, but the attorney said there was nothing to amend or add.

O'Connell's demurral closed the door on the hearing becoming a damages hearing, Wall said.

“I believe this action can be amended that his clients can come before this board and your clients can come before this board and litigate what you believe the amount of damages at issue, what that amount is,” he said. “I wanted to get this case resolved today.”

Wall offered O'Connell a chance to amend the action, but the attorney said there was nothing to amend of add.

O'Connell's demurral closed the door on the hearing becoming a damages hearing, Wall said.

“That would have been my preference to have heard that today, while all parties were present and at least arrive at a number,”Wall said. “Once we arrive at a number, things can go forward from there.”

While Wall agreed that the Watsons had a right of possession for an animal seized on their property, that right is not all-encompassing.

“Once the number is arrived at, barring any other claim of possession by the defendents in this case their right to possession would cease upon that number being arrived at and that number being satisfied and the Blantons would have their property returned,” he said. “We did not arrive at that point today.”

The Watsons are asking for more than $5,000 in damages for taking for the dog.

That number is based on the amount, $15-20, that a boarder would charge daily to keep a dog, Beasley said. The Watsons have had the dog for 302 days.

That figure, $4,530, does not include vet bills and supplies purchased for the dog.

Beasley said the Blantons had refused to pay the damages presented by the Watsons.

He said the judge was “trying to help the other side and allow them to proceed under a different statute.”

“They never filed a complaint on that statue, never proceed with any action under that statute,” Beasley said. “Based on the law, they weren't entitled to use that statute. There was never any motion to amend … to allow the judge to do that.”

Keith Blanton said he and his wife were told by the Clerk of Court's office to file a claim and delivery action.

After the hearing, the Blantons were unsure if they would refile the case.

Keith Blanton said the family would have to discuss if they want to move forward with the case.

“It's ridiculous that we can't get even a hearing,” he said. “We offered to pay reasonable damages from the beginning. He was unreasonable.”

Original Report: 12:22pm, Thursday, February 28, 2013

A judge has dismissed the highly-disputed case involving a chihuahua on a technicality.

The ongoing dispute between Councilman Dave Watson, his wife Trish and the Blanton family over who can rightfully keep the small dog known as Lucy and Gracie was dismissed Thursday in court.

The judge said the case was filed as a claim and delivery case and was not applicable in this case. The attorney for the Blanton family was offered the opportunity to file an amendment, but did not do so.

Keith Blanton told Patch he is unsure how the family will proceed.