BC woman takes mother to court after she refused to return Gucci the dog

Olena Tselykh/Shutterstock

A mother and daughter went to court over a dispute about who owned Gucci, the chihuahua.

April Louise Brown took her mother, Janie Larsen, to court at the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal because she said Larsen refused to return her dog to her. In response, Larsen filed a counterclaim.

According to the decision, in January 2023, Brown agreed to let Gucci temporarily stay with Larsen because her dog liked to play with her mother’s two other dogs.

However, when she asked for her dog back, Brown claimed Larsen refused and said Gucci was gifted to her during a phone conversation.

Brown explained that she did call her mother and asked if Gucci could have another extended visit (which they’d often agree to) because he seemed to miss her dogs. At no time during that phone call did she tell Larsen she was giving Gucci to her, Brown said.

In contrast, Larsen said when Brown offered to gift Gucci, she asked her daughter several times whether she intended to let her keep Gucci and she confirmed so.

To support her position, Larsen submitted a statement from her husband which indicated she told her husband her daughter had just given them Gucci “to keep” and thanked Brown when they picked him up.

Larsen also submitted a statement from her other daughter, CB, who said in a conversation with Brown she said she was proud of her sister for giving Gucci to their mom and Brown did not correct or deny she had gifted Gucci.

CB also said Brown has a history of giving her pets away and then asking for them back.

In the evidence Brown provided, she shared statements from her friend, AR, who said they were at Brown’s house when she called Larsen to ask if Gucci could have “another sleepover visit.”AR claimed there was no room to misunderstand Brown and said the call took place on speakerphone, so they were able to hear both parties.

Despite the evidence provided by Brown and Larson, the tribunal member said, “I find the statements all lack complete independence, given the personal relationships between the statement-writers and the people in support of whom they wrote them. I also find the statement evidence evenly balanced, which leaves me with an evidentiary tie.”

They added Larsen’s paid veterinary invoices also do little to show Brown gave her Gucci.

Larsen also alleges Gucci was mistreated while in Brown’s care, but the tribunal member said they found no evidence of the sort.

“On balance, I find Miss Brown has a better property claim to Gucci than does Mrs. Larsen. I find Miss Brown remains Gucci’s owner and that she is entitled to his return,” the tribunal member said.

You might also like:

While Brown not only sought the return of her dog back (which she valued at $650), she aimed to claim $2,000 for mental and emotional trauma she and her young child suffered because of Larsen’s actions, she said.

However, while the tribunal member admitted not having Gucci “was likely difficult and stressful” for a claim of mental distress to be successful, there must be independent evidence of the harm asserted — which she did not provide.

“Also, I find Miss Brown cannot claim for trauma she says her child suffered without naming them in the dispute, which she did not do. I dismiss Miss Brown’s claim for mental and emotional trauma.”

Larsen counterclaimed for $3,831.13 for veterinarian expenses and $1,168.87 for extreme mental and emotional trauma, for a total of $5,000.

However, the tribunal members said they found that Larsen had no legal right to have Gucci treated without Brown’s permission. “So, I find she is not entitled to reimbursement of the claimed expenses,” they said. “I dismiss Mrs. Larsen’s claim for paid veterinarian bills.”

Her claim for mental distress was also dismissed.