who owns this dog???????????/

[am1368]

What is the name of your state?South Carolina
My son bought a dog from the neighbor for $1.00 and has a bill of sale that she signed and a witness signed but is not notorized. He went to court and the judge told him he has to give the dog back and will not get the money back he has spent on vet bills. He has 5 days to either give the dog back or appeal this case for a $150.00 fee. He needs advice on this matter to see if maybe he has a chance to keep this dog if he goes back to court and not to be out of another $150.00 on top of thr $500.00 he has already spent on this dog at the vet. He has had this dor for a couple of months and the kids are very attached. Judge didn't even want to see proof this was neighbors dog nor did he want to see receipts for the vet bills. Judge said that was his problem.

 

[Happy Trails]

What is the name of your state?South Carolina
My son bought a dog from the neighbor for $1.00 and has a bill of sale that she signed and a witness signed but is not notorized. He went to court and the judge told him he has to give the dog back and will not get the money back he has spent on vet bills. He has 5 days to either give the dog back or appeal this case for a $150.00 fee. He needs advice on this matter to see if maybe he has a chance to keep this dog if he goes back to court and not to be out of another $150.00 on top of thr $500.00 he has already spent on this dog at the vet. He has had this dor for a couple of months and the kids are very attached. Judge didn't even want to see proof this was neighbors dog nor did he want to see receipts for the vet bills. Judge said that was his problem.

Of course there are two sides to every story. Why did the Judge rule in the favor of the old owner? Why did the old owner want the dog back?

 

[am1368]

The judge ruled in the original owners favor because she lied and said she left the dog with my son for him to take care of the dog. Her husband that's in jail is the one that wants the dog back. Funny thing though, that was the reason she wanted to give the dog to my son in the first place and he said he would buy it from her and she insisted on giving it to him. So to keep things legal, so he thought, he gave her one dollar and made up a bill of sale that they both signed as well as his witness. Judge said that since it was not notarized it was not a legal document. Also she accused him of offenses that never took place. I know this to be fact because the date she claimed they took place in the letter she wrote my son was at a church function with us in North Carolina

 

[BL]

He has 5 days to either give the dog back or appeal this case for a $150.00 fee.

If your son is a minor , he can't enter into a sales contract , even for a dollar .

 

[Happy Trails]

The judge ruled in the original owners favor because she lied and said she left the dog with my son for him to take care of the dog. Her husband that's in jail is the one that wants the dog back. Funny thing though, that was the reason she wanted to give the dog to my son in the first place and he said he would buy it from her and she insisted on giving it to him. So to keep things legal, so he thought, he gave her one dollar and made up a bill of sale that they both signed as well as his witness. Judge said that since it was not notarized it was not a legal document. Also she accused him of offenses that never took place. I know this to be fact because the date she claimed they took place in the letter she wrote my son was at a church function with us in North Carolina

What new evidence does he have to convince the Judge to rule in his favor? If he is to sue her, he will have the burden of proof.

The paper she signed does not have to be notarized, it would have been nice, since she evidently lied to the Judge that she signed it.

 

[am1368]

If your son is a minor , he can't enter into a sales contract , even for a dollar .

My son is 27

 

[am1368]

What new evidence does he have to convince the Judge to rule in his favor? If he is to sue her, he will have the burden of proof.

The paper she signed does not have to be notarized, it would have been nice, since she evidently lied to the Judge that she signed it.

Why would the judge tell him that it did have to be notarized?

 

[Happy Trails]

Why would the judge tell him that it did have to be notarized?

I can only assume that it came down to her convincing the Judge that she didn't sign it. The Judge had to decide if there was an agreement or not.

Some small claim cases don't even have a piece of paper stating an agreement, although an oral agreement is harder to prove, people have been able to win.

It comes down to what evidence the Judge is given and what the Judge believes is the truth. Then they make their ruling.