Gift of a Dog: No Obligation to Return It in the Face of Peaceful and Public Possession

The Nancy Court of Appeals has just ruled on a case pitting the donor of a dog against the recipient. The original owner is contesting the gift and is seeking the return of her dog, while the current owner has enjoyed peaceful, open, and continuous possession and has been granted the right to keep the animal. In July 2012, Ms. M was looking for an adoptive family for her two-year-old miniature pinscher. Due to financial difficulties and an upcoming hospital stay, she could no longer afford to care for her pet, which also suffered from an umbilical hernia requiring surgical treatment. After being approached—among others—at her workplace, Ms. V was persuaded to take the dog in. Ms. M also gave her the dog’s health records. Almost a year later, in June 2013, Ms. M decided to reclaim her dog and served Ms. V with a formal notice demanding its return. She filed a lawsuit against Ms. V in the Nancy District Court to seek the dog’s return, as well as damages. The donor still considers herself the dog’s owner, claiming that Ms. V is in bad faith possession of the animal. Having grown attached to the pinscher, Ms. V refuses to return it, arguing that the dog was given to her by Ms. M, who then abandoned it. In addition, should she be forced to return the animal, she requests that Ms. M be ordered to reimburse her for the costs of the animal’s care, upkeep, and surgery, totaling €7,748. In its October 2014 judgment, the Nancy court ordered Ms. M to pay Ms. V the sum of €1,040 for veterinary expenses and ordered Ms. V to return the dog as soon as that amount is paid to her, subject to a penalty of €10 per day. The judge ruled that Ms. M’s transfer of the dog to Ms. V, more than two years earlier, should be considered a deposit agreement. Ms. V challenges this decision before the Nancy Court of Appeals, explaining that Ms. M gave her the dog because she could no longer afford to care for it, that it has been in her possession since July 2012, and that a manual gift in her favor is presumed. Indeed, a possessor who claims to have received an item as a manual gift benefits from a presumption to that effect. It is therefore up to the person claiming ownership of the personal property to prove the absence of such a gift or to prove that the possession claimed by the holder does not meet the legal conditions to be valid. In this case, the Nancy Court of Appeals found that Ms. V has been in possession of the dog since the former owner voluntarily and publicly handed the animal over to her on July 5, 2012, in front of her office colleagues. Since that handover, it has been common knowledge that Ms. V owns the dog. According to the court, this therefore constitutes peaceful, public, and continuous possession, free from any ambiguity : the animal lives at Ms. V’s residence, and neither Ms. M nor anyone else has shared this possession with her. Since Ms. V’s possession is thus free of defects, it is up to Ms. M to prove that she did not give her dog to Ms. V of her own free will. However, the former owner has not provided this proof. For her part, even though the burden of proof regarding the manual gift does not rest with her, the donee presented the court with witness statements regarding the handover of the dog and its health records, which attest to the reality of this gift. Consequently, the Court of Appeals ruled that Ms. V became the owner of the dog following the manual gift that took place in July 2012, and Ms. M’s claim for restitution was ultimately dismissed. She was ordered to pay €1,000 in legal costs to Ms. V.