Unfortunately and sadly I fell victim to my significant other of 6 years... that during our relationship my dog was killed by a car in front of our home. She as open to my getting another dog but asked to participate in the search as she had learned she had some allergies to pet dander and would like for me to get a hypoalergenic dog ( one with hair) and I agreed.. seemed like a reasonable request.

We finally found a dog... at a breeder and I chose to get it... actually she also concurred... Well when I went to pay she insisted as it was several hundred dollars and she felt that it was only right given that she was the one who needed the dog that had hair and cost a lot more.

I graciously agreed.

Well here come the deceitful and heart breaking part. Two years later and after I was so so connected to my dog... as she was also to an extent.. She announced that she wanted to end the relastionship and that she was planning on taking Boomer... my little Boomer... A White Bichon.

She said that given that she bought and paid for Boomer... and yes unknowingly she did put the dog in her name... who was thinking these things at the time...

When pressed by me she acknowledged that she did that... not so much to be generous to me... and fair as I explained... but so that when and if the relationship ended... she would be able to legally take Boomer... my dog.

I challenged this in court... and expensive process and LOST... The Judge basically ruled that she had the Bill of Sale and proof that she bought Boomer... and although hearing the details... and she even admitted in court that she put it in her name for that reason.

It is immoral and yet not illegal...

Now to my question...

Since I contributed to 1/2 of any and all expenses grooming and vet bills and other things for Boomer... ( she also paid 1/2 along the way)... and leading me to believe it was my dog... and she was willing to share in the ongoing expenses as Boomer lived with us both...

I want to know if there is and case law that would clearly support where I would be entitled to Sue for Monies I paid to support what has been determined to be her dog ) legally that is).

I think I recall reading somehere where that I could/would/should be entitled to get reimbursed for my contribution to Boomers upkeep.

Is there some legal precedent that I can refer to... to support my claim?

A dog is a possession. It is not a child. I am not aware of any such ruling that you are speaking about. The dog was her possession as she bought the animal and it was your decision to pay 1/2 of the dog's upkeep.

If you've already been to Court and the judge ruled it was her possession, I really don't think you'll win with this lawsuit either. Consider it an expensive lesson well learned.

A car would get given to one person also. Doesn't matter if you paid for half the gas and all the oil changes...

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/divorce/marital-property-141360.html

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/mortgages/mobile-home-repossession-211121.html

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/taxes/1099-penalty-183069.html

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/small-claims/vacating-default-judgement-345847.html

In ALL of the above threads you post your opinion without any legal background at all so I haven't a clue why you would even give me a reddie and say what you did above...

bigchuck disagrees: This answer seems more like a Judge Judy type answer... The answer said "I never heard of XXX" and then the person shoots out what appears to be an Opinion... I thought thes answers on this site were from "Real Experts".

You even revived a thread from 2007 to answer it! Well, you're no expert or have any legal training whatsoever. You are just a landscaper!!