Sep 11, 2008 8 min read

According to court records, Charles E. Wolfe and Dorthea Carter, both of Graysville, filed a lawsuit against the Humane Society on Aug. 25, in which they were asking for the shelter to return a five month-old mixed breed puppy, named “Buffy,” which they claimed was mistakenly taken to the shelter as a stray and later adopted by someone else. According to the suit filed in the county prothonotary’s office, the pair alleged that Wolfe originally owned the dog and had given it to Dorthea Carter earlier this year; Carter then gave the puppy back to Wolfe so he could give it to his son, Jaden, as a birthday present, the suit stated.

The suit alleged that Jaden and the dog developed a close bond and the dog slept in Jaden’s bed. In June, Jaden had suffered a seizure during the night and the dog alerted members of the family, which enabled the family to transport the boy to the hospital, the suit states.

While Jaden was recovering, the hospital allowed the dog to be brought into his room, according to court records.

The suit also alleged that a therapist told the family that the dog was instrumental in Jaden’s recovery because of their close bond.

According to the suit, on Aug. 12 Wolfe took the dog to Robert Keller of Waynesburg so it could play with Keller’s dog, which was Buffy’s litter mate; however, on Aug. 13 Keller took Buffy and another dog to the Humane Society shelter and told the shelter that the dogs were strays, the suit states.

On Aug. 18, Carter visited the shelter to adopt another animal when she recognized Buffy; she called Wolfe to inform him of this, and when Wolfe called the shelter to inquire about Buffy he left a message on the shelter’s answering machine indicating that he wanted the dog back, the suit stated.

On Aug. 20, Wolfe – along with Carter and Candy Matusik – visited the shelter to prove ownership and get the dog back, but they were told they could not have him back, according to the suit.

The suit alleged that Wolfe and Matusik left the shelter to seek legal counsel in the matter; while they were gone, Humane Society Director Jane Gapen tricked Carter into signing a document agreeing to surrender ownership of the animal to the shelter, the suit alleged.

The plaintiffs then claimed that Carter was told that if she signed the document the dog would be released to her; the document she signed was actually a document surrendering ownership of the puppy to the shelter, according to reports.

After she signed it, she did not have a chance to read it because she was told that if she did not leave the premises she would be arrested, the suit stated.

The next day, Wolfe, Matusik and their attorney, Mary Pruss, visited the shelter to retrieve the dog, but they were informed that the dog had been adopted, the suit stated.

Although the plaintiffs were told the dog had been adopted, the suit alleged that that the dog had actually been taken to a veterinarian’s office to be spayed in preparation for adoption.

According to the suit, Gapen was then asked why the dog had been adopted when Wolfe had requested the shelter to return the dog to him, and Gapen told them that Carter had informed her that she was afraid of Wolfe and she was trying to protect Carter.

Carter denied making any statements indicating that she was afraid of Wolfe, the suit stated.

After the suit was filed, the court ordered the Humane Society to retrieve the dog and hold it at the shelter until the issue was resolved in court.

The hearing, which was presided by Judge William Nalitz, began on Aug. 27 and continued on Sept. 2. During the hearing, Nalitz heard testimony from several witnesses.

Wolfe testified that he was the rightful owner of Buffy and that the dog had become very attached to his son and slept with him every night. He also said that when he let Keller have Buffy to play with his own dog he expected Buffy to be returned to him.

He attempted to contact Keller to make arrangements to get the dog back but was unable to reach him, he testified.

During Carter’s testimony, she stated that she was misled into signing the document and that when she signed it she did not read the form, nor did she know she was giving up ownership of Buffy by signing it. She also testified that Gapen had covered up the title of the document with her hand so she could not read it.

Carter also testified that while she was at the shelter she was yelled at by Gapen and Craig Wise, a Humane Society board member, and that they told her she would be arrested if she did not leave the premises.

On the second day of the hearing, the court heard testimony from Gapen, Wise and several shelter workers.

Gapen and Wise both testified that they did not threaten to arrest Carter, and that Carter had told them that she was afraid of Wolfe and she did not want to be involved with the issue. She also asked them not to tell Wolfe that she had signed the document, they testified.

Gapen and Wise also testified that Carter was willing to surrender the dog to the Humane Society and that Gapen did not mislead her or cover the top of the form with her hand.

Wise told the court that he told Carter twice that by signing the form she was giving up ownership of Buffy.

Gapen also testified that the Humane Society held the dog for 48 hours as required by state law before it was adopted. The law states that any animal housed at the shelter must be available for public view at the shelter for two days that the shelter is open to the public, regardless of their operating hours, before the animal is available for adoption, Gapen explained in court.

Buffy was available for public view for three days that the shelter was open, Gapen said.

Gapen also testified that she heard Wolfe’s telephone message from the shelter’s answering machine on Aug. 19, and that the message stated that he had given his dog away and wanted to get it back.

Anita Jaggie, a kennel manager at the shelter, testified that she was at the shelter when Carter saw the dog on Aug. 18, and that she did not show any interest in reclaiming it.

During closing comments, attorney Dave Pollock, representing the Humane Society, said the shelter was legally entitled to adopting out the puppy because it was held and available for public view for more than 48 hours before being adopted.

Pruss, representing the plaintiffs, argued that Carter had proven ownership of the dog to the shelter but they refused to give him up, and that Carter had been deceived into signing the document.

Nalitz concluded the hearing by stating that he would render a decision on the matter by the end of the week.

On Sept. 5, Nalitz issued an order ruling in favor of the Humane Society, denying the plaintiffs’ request to have the dog returned to them and determining that the society had legal ownership of the dog and was allowed to adopt it out.

Furthermore, the order states the “testimony from the parties was so contradictory that the decision is based mostly, if not entirely, on credibility.”

In the order, Nalitz also determined that the society had complied with the state law in regards to the 48-hour viewing period.

According to the order, Nalitz also determined that neither Carter nor Wolfe was certain who owned the puppy, and that Carter’s lack of interest in reclaiming the dog was “knowing and voluntary.”

“We specifically reject her version of the events surrounding her signature [on the form] and we find that her release of her interest in the dog was knowing and voluntary,” the order states.

Nalitz also said that Wolfe had surrendered ownership of the dog by giving it to Keller and then later leaving a message on the shelter’s answering machine claiming that he had given the dog away, the order states.

Nalitz also wrote in the order that “it is always unfortunate when a child and his dog are separated, but we believe from the evidence in this case that the decision to do so was made by Charles Wolfe and Dorthea Carter, or both.”