Legal Question in Civil Litigation in Massachusetts
Frivilous Lawsuit?
My roommate and I co-own a dog and are going our separate ways. I told her she can decide if she wants to take the dog or if she doesn't, in which case I'd take him. She told me she did NOT want the dog, but that she also felt as if she deserved $600 in compensation for him. I told her that I would not pay her for a dog that she refuses to take and is, in fact, abandoning, but that in light of her knowing that I will not pay her, she could change her mind and decide to take the dog instead. She refused saying that she was going to sue me (i have received notice from the district court). I have this entire conversation documented via email, including the parts where i specifically state that she can decide to take the dog (and to notify me within the next 72 hours), where I clearly point out that she refused to take the dog, and where I state that I am taking the dog only because she is otherwise abandoning him.
I know for a FACT that she has no supporting evidence, and her sole argument is that she deserves the money. There was NEVER a buyout agreement--either verbal or written.
Does she have a case? is this a frivolous suit?
3 Answers from Attorneys
Re: Frivilous Lawsuit?
I agree with the comments from Attorneys Lee and Lebensbaum.
As a practical matter, pets are treated as personal property under the law. Consequently, to understand this issue a little better, you could substitute, say, "television" for "dog" in your example, and the law would work in the same way. Viewed in that context and playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, I suppose there may be some basis for her to try to claim money from you, since she co-owns the dog and the dog has value. I think the more important consideration, however, is the one you have raised about abandonment. Obviously, the dog can't be split in half and given to both of you, and she has clearly demonstrated that she does not want to keep the dog. Accordingly, while there are no sure bets about how a clerk magistrate will rule on this in small claims court, I believe you have a very compelling argument that she has waived her rights to payment from you, since she has shown no interest in keeping the dog herself. Good luck. From the information you've provided and assuming you have not left out any significant information in your narrative, I am cautiously optimistic that you should prevail. In any event, as a legal strategy (or negotiating leverage against her), you may want to consider a counterclaim against her for your anticipated future expense of keeping the dog. To be honest, I don't think that is a winning counterclaim, any more than I think her claim for a $600 payment from you is a winner, but it may be something that you should consider in light of her claim for money.
Re: Frivilous Lawsuit?
This sounds like small claims.
A big hint: the District Courts don't really like being drawn into break-up disputes like this. Let HER be the strident one.
Just go to court with all of the e-mails. Clerk magistrates hear small claims cases. I suspect that you will be given an entirely fair hearing. Do not get all fired up, keep your tone quiet, and do not piss off the hearing officer with statements like, " I know for a FACT..." The clerk-magistrate will determine the facts and law, and will be happy to look at your e-mails back and forth to determine what is fair and appropriate.
Less obvious anger, more "I'm sorry she's making you look at this stuff."
: Frivilous Lawsuit?
Sounds like a small case claim.
There is no sure thing.
Present the evidence, and take it from there. You may have a chance to mediate this before the clerk hears this.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
