Good-Faith Goldendoodle

In early February, an adorable two-year-old goldendoodle was left at the airport by its owner and subsequently adopted by one of the officers who found him. The owner arrived at the airport with her goldendoodle, now named JetBlue, to take a flight but was unable to bring JetBlue because he was not properly registered. Due to the inconvenience, the owner left JetBlue behind and took the flight. Officer Black was one of the original officers to find JetBlue at the airport. The police cited the owner for abandoning JetBlue and then brought him to the shelter. The owner did not reclaim JetBlue in the ten-day recovery period offered to owners.

There was large community support for JetBlue, with over 2,700 adoption applicants. The “JetBlue” airline itself even donated to help pay veterinary bills and adoption fees. JetBlue was adopted by one of the police officers who helped rescue him. Officer Black took JetBlue to the vet for standard treatment and then brought him home to live with his new family.

While this is the end of the story as we know it, there’s a lingering question of whether Officer Black has valid ownership of JetBlue. If the original owner demanded the puppy back, could she reclaim him, or would Officer Black be entitled to keep JetBlue?

One possible answer to this question comes from the good-faith purchaser doctrine of personal property law. In Kotis v. Nowlin, a shady man purchased a Rolex watch from a watch dealer through fraud. The man then sold the watch to Kotis for a heavily discounted price. The watch dealer wanted the watch back and subsequently sued Kotis. The court identified the major elements of a good-faith purchase and went through each one before reaching its final holding. The elements are (1) a seller with voidable title (procured through cash sale, fraud, or deceit) and (2) a good faith (honesty in fact) purchaser. Specifically with regard to good faith, the court said that “although the test is what Kotis actually believed, [the court] agrees…that [the court will] not let this standard sanction willful disregard of suspicious facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe the transaction was unlawful.” The court in this case reasoned that there was a voluntary transaction because it was a transaction between the parties for an exchange of a good for money, and the watch had a voidable title because it was procured through fraud/deceit. The court held that Kotis was not a good-faith purchaser because the heavily discounted watch price suggested that he did not purchase in good faith, as a reasonable person in his circumstances should have suspected the seller did not have a valid title.

Returning to the goldendoodle, Officer Black likely has valid title under the good-faith purchaser rule. The major elements of a good-faith purchase are that the seller has voidable title and that the purchaser purchased the property in good faith. First, does the shelter (the seller) have voidable title to JetBlue? The facts do not match any of the specific types of voidable title in the UCC (a cash sale, certain bailments, fraud, deceit, or a dishonored check), but one could argue that the shelter’s interest in the puppy nevertheless was “voidable title” in a broader sense. It very well seemed like JetBlue had been abandoned at the airport, but there is some uncertainty at this point because it may have been the owner’s only option. Hence, by affording the owner a reasonable time to reclaim the dog (ten days) the shelter took adequate steps toward ensuring the owner really did not want to reclaim her property (JetBlue). Therefore, I think the shelter likely obtained at least voidable title at the time the ten-day period ran out.

Officer Black purchased JetBlue from the shelter after ten days. Therefore, his purchase was in good faith because at the time of purchase, Officer Black believed the shelter had a rightful title to JetBlue , and the owner was not going to reclaim JetBlue. The original owner’s strongest counterargument is that Officer Black did not purchase the dog in good faith because he knew the dog belonged to the owner before it went to the shelter. However, given the fact that the owner did not reclaim JetBlue within the 10 days, the court would likely not agree with this argument. Therefore, assuming the shelter had voidable title and that Officer Black purchased JetBlue, Officer Black would be protected by the good-faith purchaser rule.

I think the good-faith purchaser rule would give Officer Black an absolute property interest in JetBlue. Officer Black meets all the elements under the good-faith purchaser’s rule, and in this case, it provides the best outcome. The purpose of the good faith purchaser rule is to protect buyers, and in this case, that is exactly what is happening. The rule protects Officer Black, a loving and kind owner, from having to relinquish property to a former owner who abandoned their dog at an airport. This also supports the property theory of efficient allocation. In this case, JetBlue is going to a place where he will be best suited, a loving home.

Charlie Germanos is a law student at the American University Washington College of Law.

Image: Chris Rue, Finnegan the Goldendoodle having fun in the snow.