Question #6200109

I don't understand why this judge ruled this way about dog?

On some court show (Like Judge Judy but it was another woman) there was a woman who had been in rehab/mental hospital for an eating disorder and alcohol problem. She asked her aunt to watch her dog. She came out, got the dog back, but had to go back in the hospital again, again she asked the aunt to watch her dog. She was not allowed contact with relatives while in the hospital. The aunt claims because of no contact she believes the dog was abandoned to her. The woman is healthy and wants her dog back, but the judge ruled because the dog is property the aunt is now the owner. I do not understand that at all. If the dog is property, say this woman asked her aunt to watch her CAR. Well wouldn't the car be given back even if the aunt drove it?

2013-05-10 21:36:55

TELL US , if you have any answer

There is NEVER a problem, ONLY a challange!

The is a free-to-use knowledgebase.
  The was started on: 02.07.2010.
  It's free to register. Once you are a registered user, you can ask questions, or answer them.
  (Unless registration you can just answer the questions anonymously)
  Only english!!! Questions and answers in other languages will be deleted!!

Cheers: the PixelFighters


C'mon... follow us!

Made by, history, ect.