Abigail Jane Davis v. Brandi Butler
CPU5-15-001209
| Del. Ct. Com. Pl. | May 1, 2017Background
- On Aug. 2, 2015, Abigail Jane Davis found a flea-infested, limping dog wandering a busy Sussex County road and searched the area for an owner.
- Davis, a Maryland resident, gave the dog to Dover resident Brandi Butler to continue the effort to locate the owner; no clear evidence showed Davis intended to gift the dog to Butler.
- Owner Victor Perez later executed a Bill of Sale on Aug. 19, 2015, transferring ownership of the dog to Davis for $100; Perez did not pursue recovery.
- Davis filed a replevin action in Justice of the Peace Court on Aug. 24, 2015; the JP Court awarded possession to Davis and Butler appealed to the Court of Common Pleas for a trial de novo.
- Butler had the dog vaccinated, licensed, and microchipped while litigation was pending and argued she either received the dog as a gift or otherwise had superior possession rights.
- The Court of Common Pleas concluded Davis had superior rights both as finder of lost property and as purchaser under the Bill of Sale, and ordered Butler to return the dog within 30 days; fair market value was found to be $500.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who has right to immediate possession of the dog? | Davis: as the finder of lost property she acquired superior title against all but the true owner, and later purchased the dog from Perez. | Butler: Davis gifted the dog to Butler or Butler's possession outweighs Davis' rights. | Held for Davis: she was the finder (not a donor) and later obtained title via Bill of Sale. |
| Was the Bill of Sale champertous and void? | Davis: not champertous; she had a preexisting legal interest as finder, and no division of litigation proceeds occurred. | Butler: the purchase was a champertous assignment of a claim to a "volunteer." | Held not champertous: Davis had an independent interest before the sale and no prohibited profit-sharing in litigation occurred. |
| Is title required to maintain replevin? | Davis: title not necessary; right to immediate possession suffices, and both possession-right and title exist. | Butler: argued equitable or possession defenses based on treatment and licensing. | Held: Title not required for replevin; Davis met the possession/right standard and also holds title. |
| Was the dog "abandoned" vs. "lost"? | Davis: dog was lost due to owner's carelessness, qualifying under lost-property rules. | Butler: argued abandonment to support her claim. | Held lost, not abandoned: evidence showed involuntary loss from owner, so finder rules apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlan & Hollingsworth Corp. v. McBride, 69 A.2d 9 (Del. 1949) (defines replevin and requirement to show right of immediate possession)
- Reynolds v. Reynolds, 237 A.2d 708 (Del. 1967) (preponderance standard in civil cases)
- Campbell v. Cochran, 416 A.2d 211 (Del. Super. 1980) (distinguishes lost vs. abandoned property)
- Batteiger v. Pennsylvania Co., 64 Pa. Super. 195 (Pa. Super. 1916) (finder delivering lost property to a bailee may recover if bailee refuses return)
- Gibson v. Gillespie, 152 A. 589 (Del. Super. 1928) (defines champerty and maintenance doctrines)