Judge Won't Reconsider Easley Chihuahua Case

The plantiffs in the ongoing case involving disputed ownership of a chihuahua were hoping Judge Tommy Wall would change his mind regarding the case's dismissal, but their hopes were dashed Monday afternoon.

Keith and Kerri Blanton and Councilman Dave Watson and his wife Trish have been involved in a dispute over who rightfully owns the small dog known as Lucy and Gracie for a nearly a year.

Earlier this year, Judge Wall dismissed the case, saying that it had been filed improperly.

Keith and Kerri Blanton had filed a request for reconsideration. The hearing on that request was held this afternoon at the Liberty magistrate's office.

“The sole purpose of this hearing … was to give the parties the opportunity to be heard, to argue your motion to reconsider,” Judge Wall said.

James O'Connell, the attorney representing the Blantons, said the judge's earlier ruling had been based on a case called Segars vs. Segars, a case that had been reversed and remanded. He argued that the case no longer applied, due to the reversal.

“It should go forward to a hearing or a jury,” O'Connell said. “That's what we're essentially asking for.”

Attorney Ryan L. Beasley, representing the Watsons, didn't say much during the hearing.

“There isn't a whole lot I need to add,” Beasley told Judge Wall. “You made a ruling as a matter of law at the last hearing.”

Keith Blanton received permission from Judge Wall to make a statement.

Keith Blanton said the Watsons had not complied by SC code after the found the dog in May of 2012.

“'Any person finding a stray animal may take possession thereof and shall, if the owner is not found and no claim to such stray is made within three days.”

But the person who finds the animal must do certain things, under SC code.

“Deliver or report the finding or taking up of such strays to the nearest magistrate, who shall sell such strays at public sale after 10 days notice, posted in three public places in the county, one of which is the courthouse door,” Blanton said.

The Watsons did not notify the magistrates that they had found the chihuahua.

“The ways these laws are written, I feel like it's designed to protect both the animal owner and the person seizing the animal,” Blanton said. “It protects the person seizing the animal from incurring a burden of care for someone's animal until he locates the owners. It also protects the animal owner, like me, from an ongoing expense because I can't find my animal.”

Part of the dispute between the two families hinges on the amount that the Watsons should be reimbursed for caring for the dog since they found her.

If the defendant would have complied with (state code), the animal would have been delivered to the magistrate, the magistrate would have sold it, the proceeds of that sale would have gone to pay for their cost taking care of the animal for three days,” Blanton said. “At that time, there would be a legal transfer of ownership. That did not happen. There was never a legal transfer of ownership.”

Blanton said the Watsons should have reported the dog to the magistrates office on May 16, three days after finding the dog on May 13.

“The defendants failed to follow the law,” he said. “They kept the dog illegally.”

He said he had his wife had legal ownership of the dog when they filed their claim against the Watsons.

“I ask the court to reconsider, based on these findings,” Blanton said.

Beasley spoke briefly after Blanton's statement.

“All this stuff has been argued before and discussed and you made a ruling,” he told Wall.

Wall agreed.

“All of this was litigated at the original hearing,” he said. “The purpose of this hearing is to give everyone an opportunity to be heard. I gave you that opportunity because I wanted you to be heard on that.”

Wall said the plantiffs had earlier agreed that Segars vs. Segars applied in this case and the face that that case was remanded does not change the point.

“I respectfully deny your motion for reconsideration,” Wall said.

Afterward, Keith Blanton said he felt the hearing had been “a joke.”

“He could have sent me a letter and told me that,” he said. “I would have just as soon got a letter that said it's denied than to bring me down here to tell me personally. I think this was a joke and a waste of my time. I hate it.

“I thought he was here to hear the reconsideration,” Blanton continued. “I didn't realize that he had already made up his mind and he was just hear to tell us that 'What I wrote the first time is still what I feel.' I thought that by having a reconsideration hearing that maybe he was actually reconsidering.”

Blanton said he wasn't sure what the next step for his family was.

“Who knows?” he said. “It's hard to fight City Hall, so to speak. It doesn't seem like there's any easy way to go at this point. They keep making it harder and harder. We're making lawyers rich and keeping judges with busywork to do.”

Trish Watson said she was glad about the judge's decision.

“Hopefully this is over,” she said. “It should not have gone this long.”

Jennifer Fletcher, the Watsons daughter, said Gracie has been diagnosed with a liver condition.

“She has to have medicine every day and special food,” Trish said.

“The vet said it's either genetic or due to the trauma she suffered when she had the fall,” Fletcher said.

The Watsons have said they believe the dog was abused in the Blantons care – a charge Keith and Kerri Blanton have denied. The Blantons said they took Lucy to the vet after she fell while sitting in Kerri's lap.”

Fletcher said the Blantons did not do a thorough search after the dog disappeared from a friend's care while they were out of town.

“They didn't knock on my door,” Fletcher said. She lives in the same neighborhood as the family friend.

Trish Watson said she and her husband placed signs up stating that they had found a dog soon after they found her, but did not hear from the Blantons.

Dave Watson was not present at the hearing. He is recovering from back surgery.