Chihuahua Case Change of Venue Request Granted

An Easley magistrate has granted a change of venue in the ongoing case of a dog that involves an Easley City Councilman, his wife and a local family.

At the center of the issue is a small dog – found by the Watsons in May. The original owners of the dog, the Blanton family, say the Watsons are refusing to give the dog back even though they know the Blantons are the rightful owners.

The dog is known as Lucy by the Blantons and Gracie by the Watsons.

But the change of venue request was not granted for the reason that Councilman Dave Watson, his wife Trish and their attorney had requested.

Judge Michael Baker granted the change of venue request, but not because of the publicity the case has drawn.

“I had ex parte dealings with the Blantons Tuesday morning,” Baker said.

Meaning “to one side” or “one side only,” ex parte is a legal term. Ex parte communications occur when a party to a case communicates – either verbally or in writing – directly with a judge about a case's issue without the other party's knowledge.

“Not much was said,” Baker said. “It was a sounding board for their frustrations about how long this process was taking before they could hear whether they were going to get their dog back.”

The Watsons' attorney, Ryan L. Beasley, had argued that the case had drawn too much attention, making a fair hearing difficult for his clients.

“This case has obviously drawn a lot of publicity around this area,” Beasley said. “Because Mr. Watson is a public figure around here, everybody's got his email, so everybody's sent him all kinds of not only negatively, but also positive emails. No offense to your Honor or the other judges around here, but it shouldn't be heard before any of the judges around here. I don't think it'd be appropriate.”

He said area magistrates were probably too familiar with the case already, due to media coverage.

He had earlier requested the case be moved out of the county, but Beasley told Baker he realized the case could not be moved outside the county.

“But a judge outside the county can be brought in,” Beasley said.

Attorney James O'Connell, who is representing Keith and Kerri Blanton, said the Watsons had brought the attention about themselves.

“They took the dog to a council meeting, and they've called some of these media representatives and had them come out,” O'Connell said. “This case should stay before you, the magistrate of the area where the case took place, because it's a claim and deliver action.

“They have admitted at least five times the ownership of the dog to my client,” he continued.

The Watsons have also asked for compensation for taking care of the dog since they found it, O'Connell said.

“That's the only real issue that this court can really hear,” he said. “Mr. Watson knew at the time that he got this dog that he was supposed to turn the dog into the magistrate or tell the magistrate that he got this dog. He is not entitled to anything past that point in time. Ownership is no question – the dog should come back to my client.”

O'Connell said the change of venue request was improper, because the required two-day notice was not given, as the request was filed on Monday and the original hearing was set for Tuesday, Oct. 23.

O'Connell said the request was a delaying tactic.

He asked that Judge Baker hold the claim and deliver hearing now, not hear the change of venue request.

“There's no reason for changing this from where we're at today, ruling against them, holding the claim and delivery hearing today, - we're all here,” O'Connell said. “If there's any question of damages, any question that my clients owe him any money, that should come at a different hearing.”

O'Connell said there were other magistrates who should hear this case “who probably don't know anything about it.”

He recommended that magistrates in Central or Liberty hear the case.

Judge Baker said the change of venue request does require 48 hours.

Beasley had requested a continuance for that Oct. 23 as he had other cases that must take precedence.

“Today's the hearing, so they had plenty of notice,” Beasley said, of the Blantons.

Baker said the Watsons had “roughly 30 days from the time this was filed to the time the hearing was set” to request a change of venue.

Since no other party was present Tuesday at his discussion with the Blantons, Baker said he had to recuse himself from the case.

“What was said was more than I should have heard if I was going to hear a case,” Baker said. “I was the perfect person to hear this.I'm not from this area. I don't live in Easley city. This is the only dealing with Easley city that I have. I don't know anyone involved here.”

Other magistrates in the area have conflicts, Baker said.

“I am going to rule for a change of venue, not based on the motion, but based on the fact that we have no magistrates left in this county to here this case,” Baker said. “Court administration will assign a magistrate from outside this county.”

Pickens County will retain jurisdiction for the case, he said.

The outside magistrate will hear the case in Liberty for logistic reasons, Baker said, as the Liberty magistrate office has a bigger courtroom.

“It'll be as soon as possible,” Baker said. “That's one thing I'm going to make clear to court administration, it needs to be as soon as possible.”

Keith Blanton said he was disappointed at the outcome of today's hearing.

“We seem to get right to the point of making the decision in court in the case he (Watson) wanted,” Blanton said. “There's always a change or something else just prolonging the issue. It's tiring and frustrating.”

After the hearing, Beasley said he and his clients were “talking about the best interests of the dog.”

“There's reasoning behind why the Watsons have maintained possession and it's because of the best interests of the dog,” Beasley said. “That's going to be discovered through the medical documentation that we have received and there have been neighbors of the Blantons that have contacted my client and expressed their concern for the dog. The Watsons feel what they're doing is right. It's a fight, and it's going to be an expensive fight for them, but they think Gracie's worth it. They really care for this dog.”

The Blantons scoffed at the suggestion that Lucy was abused.

Keith Blanton said the medical records referred to show an injury that Lucy suffered and that those records were submitted to the court as part of proof of ownership

“The dog was coming to get in Kerri's lap,” he said. “The dog jumped into Kerri's lap, slipped and fell and hit her head on the computer desk.”

Lucy was rushed to the vet, he said, who examined her and kept her overnight, releasing her the next day.”

“We've got the vet records too,” Blanton said. “The vet never put anything in the records that said the dog was abused at any time. We weren't trying to hide the injury. It was an accident and accidents happen.”