-[Levy] You wanted to breed her? -Yes.
Soon after the puppies were born, four died.
She didn't say anything was wrong. I was like, okay, I trust her.
How either one of you could point the finger at the other person,
for such good friends and such animal lovers.
[narrator] Today on Tribunal Justice...
[narrator] This case was filed in Humble, Texas.
Your Honor, this is case number 1053 on the calendar
in the matter of Chaney versus Stark.
Parties have been sworn in. You may be seated.
-[Levy] Thank you, Byrd. -[Byrd] Mm-hm.
So Miss Chaney, in June of this year,
your two-year-old Great Dane gave birth to a litter of 10 puppies.
-Yes. -You were unable to care for your dog
and the puppies because you, at the same time,
were about eight or nine months pregnant and were about to deliver on your own.
Correct, I was unknowingly one week due
-after she had her puppies. -[Levy] Okay.
And as a result, you reached out to the defendant
who you knew from the Great Dane breeding community
and asked her if she would help you
by taking care of your dog prior to her giving birth
and also give birth as well.
-Because of your own pregnancy. -Right.
And this was your two-year-old dog's first litter.
-Yes. -But unfortunately, soon after
-the puppies were born, four died. -Correct.
It is your claim that but for her negligence,
those four puppies would have survived and you would have been able to sell them,
and you're suing the defendant for $10,000,
which represents $2,500 per puppy times four.
-Right. -[Levy] Now, according to Miss Stark,
the puppies died as a result of the medical negligence
of the plaintiff prior to the puppies being born.
You're also countersuing for $10,000, $1,500 for your whelping service,
-that's actually helping the dog birth. -Yes.
Three thousand dollars for delivery care.
Five thousand dollars for stud owner fees,
-and $500 for vet care. -Yes, sir.
Your experience in the Great Dane breeding community goes back how long?
-Almost 10 years. -Ten years?
Okay. What's your dog's name?
Her name is Pax.
-Is this a picture of Pax? -Yes.
Where did you get Pax from?
I actually got her from the defendant.
Um, in September of 2020, I inquired about a puppy.
She said, "Hey, I have this seven-month-old puppy.
She was an owner return."
So I met her, I loved her,
and I paid for Pax and then she came home with me about a month later.
Did you have any other dogs in your home at this time?
Yes, I had four other dogs.
-Anything else? -Three cats.
-And three cats. -Yes.
-[Levy] Do you have any children? -I do.
And at the time that Pax gave birth, which was June of this year,
-how old was your child? -She just turned three.
[Levy] And you were about, when Pax was bred,
you were seven months pregnant at the time.
-Correct. -[Levy] Was this picture of Pax
prior to her becoming pregnant?
Yes, she's always looked like that.
And she was about what? About 120 pounds?
-Is that what her general weight is? -She usually stayed between 115 and 120.
She doesn't eat more than about seven to eight cups a day.
Uh, that's what she prefers.
And this is a picture of what Pax looked like during pregnancy.
-Is that right? -Yes.
That was one of the first photos I sent her because I was worried
that she was getting smaller-- Skinnier on the spine.
And what we concluded, what we assumed what was happening
was because she's so naturally lean,
that the weight of the puppies was bringing her down
to make her look like she was underfed.
And so I was texting her consistently asking her
what things I could possibly do
to help her gain weight, to make her eat more.
Because it was important
-that she had enough nutrients... -[Chaney] Correct.
...to feed not only herself and care for herself,
-but also her puppies. -[Chaney] Correct.
So you got Pax in September 2020
from the defendant and how much was she?
-Nineteen hundred. -[Levy] Is that true?
Yes, Your Honor, it was pet price.
-What does that mean? -[Stark] It means she did not have
breeding rights to the dog. It was only a pet.
-Was that your understanding as well? -Yes. I understood.
[Levy] So just so we're clear, Ms. Stark,
if you sell a dog as a pet
versus as a breeder, what's the difference in price?
Um, well, typically I don't like to sell them full and--
When you say full, what does that mean?
Full means full registration rights, which allows you to breed dogs.
But if I were to sell the puppies on full,
they probably would have been more like $3,500-$4,500.
I see. So you pay $1,900,
but then you decided that you wanted to breed her.
-Yes. -How did you end up
discussing that with the defendant and did you pay more money?
It was either to pay her the remaining amount
or I give her two puppies from a litter that she picks
for breeding rights.
-Two puppies from the first litter? -Correct.
Now where did you find the stud, the male, to breed with Pax?
The stud came from the defendant's friend.
-[Levy] Did you pay her? -[Chaney] It was two puppy backs.
-Two puppies from the first litter also? -Yes.
[Levy] So two to the defendant
-and two to the breeder. -Mm-hm.
How many days prior to her actually giving birth did you drop Pax off?
I dropped her off on June 9th.
And was this the way she looked when you dropped her off?
There's another photo that I took the day I brought her in for radiographs.
That was on June 9th, you brought her to your vet
so that they could take an X-ray of her belly
to find out how many puppies she was gonna have.
That's when you found out she was gonna have the 10 puppies.
-Mm-hm. -[Levy] Did you do anything else
to ensure that Pax was healthy enough to give birth?
Because she was having problems, was she not?
She was typical. She was just having minor issues
but it wasn't anything extravagant.
She wasn't having problems with diarrhea?
She wasn't having problems with losing weight?
She wasn't having problems with not eating?
She was eating, she was eating the exact amount she always eats,
it was getting her to eat more.
No, Your Honor, she was telling me that she was having a really hard time
getting her to eat even five cups of food,
and that she doesn't understand why the dog was still dropping weight.
Okay, and by the way, I want you to explain to me what it is now
that you claim the defendant did, or did not do,
that was neglectful in your opinion,
that caused the death of your four puppies.
On June 14th, she brought Pax in with her puppies to be examined.
At the time, two puppies had already passed
and then we determined that the third puppy, his heart was fading.
So that doctor determined that it would be best to put him to sleep
because at that time he was suffering.
So while I was in the surgery room and he was getting put to sleep,
the doctor went to the back and examined Pax.
He came to me, he said, "She's not lethargic,
she's still eating her food, she's drinking, she's acting normal.
Just monitor her. I don't want to prescribe antibiotics
because that could hurt the puppies."
I relayed that exact message to her and she said, "Okay."
Throughout that entire week I was texting her and saying,
"How are they doing, how's Pax doing, how's the discharge?"
-Everything was fine. -[Levy] When you say discharge,
you were getting notified by the defendant
that there was quite a bit of discharge
coming from Pax throughout the entire time
that she had whelped, gave birth. Is that true?
She received a couple of photos, including what was-- I had it on my glove
and I sent her that as well.
[Chaney] But she wasn't telling me
throughout the week the discharge was still persistent.
It was getting worse and worse up until June 20th.
She-- And then that's when she sent me the photo with that glove
showing that it's gotten worse.
And so I said I think she needs to come in for-- I said a mom exam
because something's going on.
[Levy] You do recall on July 8th there was a text message.
You say, "Do you think," to the defendant, "I neglected Pax?"
And her response was, "No, intentionally. I don't think so.
I don't think you would purposely do anything to hurt your dogs,
but the fact that you told me your vet did see her
and said they did not know what to prescribe her,
then to find out that they never saw her, put her and her puppies at risk.
That was very neglectful and that's what made me mad.
She would have been able to nurse, the puppies would not have gotten sick,
and she would have gotten the medication she needed much faster.
It has caused all the issues that the puppies have had."
That you lied to her.
-That's what she wrote to you. -Mm-hm.
[Levy] What was it that she lied to you about?
When I drove the puppies to her vet,
she told me the vet was going to see Pax and bring out medication for her
and then we would be on our way.
When she brought her out, she's like, well they don't know what to prescribe
a pregnant or nursing dog,
so they told me to just tell you to watch her eating and drinking.
If she's eating and drinking, then she's fine.
And she lied to me. She never had the dog seen
they never gave her antibiotics.
She told me the truth the day she picked up the dog.
The puppies could have gotten the infection from the milk.
They could have had the fading puppy syndrome.
And Pax was not a careful mom.
I got it. When the defendant sent you that text on July 8th,
when she said that you had lied to her, that the doctor never examined her,
you never denied it in any of your texts. Why?
[narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice...
What kind of money problems were you having at this time?
Because you were having money problems, weren't you?
-Yes. -Mm-hm.
You were counting on those puppies, weren't you? Mm-hm.
[narrator] Darrian Chaney is suing her former friend and dog breeder, Tonya Stark
for the cost of Great Dane puppies.
Tonya is countersuing for dog care and vet bills.
When the defendant sent you that text on July 8th,
when she said that you had lied to her, that the doctor never examined her.
You never denied it in any of your texts. Why?
-It was all verbal. -So you're saying you denied it verbally.
[Chaney] A lot of our conversations were on the phone.
Judge Acker.
I feel like something really horrible happened here.
I mean, it's terrible to lose puppies.
But I also have no idea how you are going to prove your case
or how you're going to prove your countersuit.
So I'm going to start with you, Miss Chaney.
Your case is about the fact that the defendant did not take Pax
and her litter to your vet on the 13th,
but that she took the animals to her vet the next day, is it not?
-No. -Let's look at your complaint
because according to you, you say,
"Since Tonya neglected my dog Pax and didn't take her to the vet
as soon as she noticed she was ill, she owes me $10,000 for fatal injuries."
Further, in your complaint, you say that Pax gave birth on June 13th.
You take issue with the fact that the defendant
didn't take Pax to the vet until the next day.
No, that wasn't what I was saying.
Pax had her puppies on the 13th.
On the 14th, that's when Pax laid on the puppies.
She was telling me that the puppies weren't doing well
and Pax had discharge.
So that's when on June 14th, she brought her into my vet.
The only reason why I suggested my vet was because I worked there.
I could get get her in there faster.
Otherwise she'd have to call her vet and schedule an appointment.
So she brought her in around 8 am on the 14th.
The doctor said I don't see the discharges there,
but monitor her. She's still eating, she's not lethargic,
she's acting totally normal, just monitor the discharge.
So from the 14th all the way to the 20th, she was still with the defendant.
That whole time I was asking her how she's doing
because at the time I wasn't doing well myself.
Like I said, I was unknowingly due the next week.
I wasn't due for another two and a half weeks.
So I was asking her the whole time, how is she doing?
Is she doing okay? She's like, "Yeah, she's eating this many cups,
she's doing this, she's doing this." And I thought everything was fine.
I was like, okay, I trust her, I--
How did she breach your trust?
Because the entire week, she didn't say anything was wrong.
I saw an abundance of text messages
where you all are communicating about the dog,
"Is the dog eating and what's the dog eating?
And I'm going to pick this stuff up and this--"
-There were communications. -[Chaney] There was, yes.
And in your complaint,
you say her hesitation led to why we are in court today.
I just don't see evidence of that.
Well, the discharge was not being updated.
Yes, she was updating me how she was feeling, if she was eating.
What do you mean the discharge wasn't being updated?
You mean she was supposed to send you hourly texts
-about the discharge? -[Chaney] No.
-No. -It's not what you say in your complaint.
In your complaint, you say that instead of taking Pax to your vet immediately,
she took Pax to her vet the next day.
-No, that was-- -No, don't say no.
This is what you wrote in court.
Now I wanna talk about your countersuit
because according to you she now owes you $10,000
for all of these things that you never agreed on,
like whelping services, 1500,
post advanced, plus delivery care, $3,000.
Stud owner due to co-owner's breach of breeder contract, $5,000.
Where was the contract where she promised to give you all of these things?
-It was all verbal that we discussed. -[Acker] So no, no, no,
I did not see in any of these text messages that there was a promise
to pay you for these things.
Um, the whelping services and the care is typically what I charge.
Not typically, show me where she said she was going to pay you this.
-[Stark] She did not-- I-- -Never, never, she never agreed to that.
-No, she-- She did agree to a few things. -But after the puppies died
you've now decided that you can come up with a way
that she owes you $10,000.
Yes, Your Honor.
Court is not lottery, this is not Vegas.
-No, ma'am. -[Acker] Judge DiMango.
[DiMango] Didn't you get two puppies?
[Stark] Actually, the stud owner repossessed the entire litter
and I was just compensated for some of my time and expenses.
But pursuant to the agreement, you would have gotten two.
And that happened not because of the plaintiff, however,
that happened because of the stud owner, correct?
-Yes, the stud owner. -So basically,
she complied with your payment portion of the contract.
So what was abundantly clear to me is
you love having pets and you love animals.
You are an experienced breeder
who also shares that similar passion for animals.
I'm not that experienced with pets,
but there were three ways that these puppies could have died,
two of which we've already seen in this case.
One, animals are much more instinctual
in how they go about life than we are.
They know when they're sick.
And I also feel that, you know, we're talking about
she didn't want to nurse the puppies
because she knew that she could pass
the vaginal infection that she had.
The-- I think it was like a yeast infection.
That could have been passed to the pups.
In fact, a couple of them I recall reading the message, had something in their eye,
the same kind of mucus that was coming from her as well, correct?
-Correct, Your Honor. -[DiMango] So that was one way
that the pups could have passed.
The second way obviously was that Pax apparently laid on one of the pups
and caused that pup to die.
Once again, I mean, she was sick.
To what degree, I don't know, and neither do you know,
and neither did the vets know, really.
You just knew that there was this discharge that was an issue.
-And the third way is the fading-- -Fading puppy syndrome.
[DiMango] Fading puppy syndrome.
Which it appeared that the first one or two of the puppies
actually might have passed from that.
So of this litter of 10,
we have 4 pups that passed in any one of these different ways.
I mean, to point the finger when this is probably nature's way
of saying, "This shouldn't be. We're gonna take care of it."
So I don't see, without expert testimony,
how either one of you could point the finger at the other person.
You know, this didn't work out for Pax
more than it didn't work out for the two of you.
I don't have any other questions.
I'm gonna follow up because what I don't understand from you, ma'am, Miss Chaney,
is that you made it very clear to Judge Acker that you deny
that you're claiming that this was a one-day delay in treatment
and that one day and the defendant not bringing Pax to your vet never happened.
-Right? -[Chaney] She brought her on the 14th.
On the 14th. I'm not talking about the 14th,
which is the day that you claim your doctor saw the dog.
-Yes, I have a letter too. -[Levy] I don't care what the letter says.
You work in this place with this doctor, right?
I don't care what any letter says. Let's just agree on the following.
On the 14th, after being advised that your dog was discharging
a green mucus substance from her vagina for several days,
she's losing weight,
that she has dead parasites in her diarrhea-- Hold on.
Your vet, according to what you testified a moment ago,
said that there was no antibiotics that were necessary.
That's what you said on the 14th.
You said that this one-day delay
where you wanted her to go on the 22nd to your vet,
and she said no, never happened.
I'm gonna read you the text.
June 22nd, you, 2:52 pm.
"If I call my vet, would you be able to bring her there?
I'm hoping it's just vaginitis."
And she doesn't respond until 5:05.
And you write a note in the margin of that text
that your vet office was closed by that time.
And then on June 23rd,
the defendant says to you, "The puppies have pus in their eyes.
My vet warned it could have happened if they got covered in pus."
So she took the puppies to her vet.
The puppies were sucking near Pax when the defendant says,
that she took a quick nap and her daughter Delilah
fell asleep on the job. LOL.
And you, who were so upset that you think that she's the cause
of your four puppies dying, reply, "Laugh out loud.
I'm glad you caught that in the eye now instead of later."
That was your response.
Explain how, while you believe at this period of time,
based upon the 14th of June when you took your dog to the vet the first time,
and now when she's delayed for one day taking to her vet,
your response to her is, "Laugh out loud, ha ha, it's not a big deal."
And yet you're here suing her for $10,000.
What kind of money problems were you having at this time?
Because you were having money problems, weren't you?
[narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice...
Her vet got her those antibiotics and they did blood work on her.
-Yes, Your Honor. -And what did that blood work show?
Elevated white blood count.
She had an infection in the uterus that was going to kill her.
Kill her.
And all you cared about was your money.
What kind of money problems were you having at this time?
Because you were having money problems, weren't you?
-Yes. -Mm-hm.
You were counting on those puppies, weren't you? Mm-hm.
You told her that not only could you not pay your mortgage
because you were up to here in debt,
but that you had to sell stuff to pay your mortgage.
You don't remember telling that to her?
I probably did.
You probably did. That's exactly what you did.
You don't remember after June 23rd, her telling you
that because of her doctor-- Her vet, not yours,
not the one who said, "Oh, she looks fine to me, she doesn't need antibiotics."
Her vet got her those antibiotics.
-Is that right? -Yes, Your Honor.
And not only did they give her antibiotics,
they did blood work on her, didn't they?
-[Stark] Yes, Your Honor. -And what did that blood work show?
-Elevated white blood count. -Yes, Your Honor.
She had an infection in the uterus that was going to kill her.
Kill her.
Who saved your dog?
And all you cared about was your money.
That's all you cared about, according to those texts.
-Okay. -And you sue her for $10,000.
But in all fairness, though, you picked up Pax on what day? July 1?
-Yes. -Who had the puppies?
-[Chaney] She did. -[Levy] You left without those puppies?
I wasn't taking them because they were still too young.
What did you do with those puppies?
Because you had them and you were entitled to two of them.
You could have sold those two and recouped your losses,
but you gave those up to the original stud owner, correct?
-Because we had a contract-- -[Levy] You gave those up.
-Yes, Your Honor. -Mm-hm. Okay, thank you.
We're going to retire to deliberate. Thank you both.
This court now stands in recess, parties are excused.
The plaintiff-- Listen, she loves animals. There's absolutely no doubt about that.
Four dogs, three cats, a two-and-a-half-year-old
and she's giving birth,
but she decides that that's the right time to breed a Great Dane,
especially with a new mother, as the dog has never done it before.
It just showed pretty poor judgment.
And from what I saw in all those texts and what we just heard
suggests to me that that judgment just never got any better.
For her to try to place blame squarely on the shoulders of the defendant,
when that dog came to the defendant's house, was brought there by the plaintiff,
with discharge and with parasites in its poop, losing weight.
That's how it was dropped off and she just sits in here and denies it.
In her mind, she's concocted this whole story
about how she is the victim and she's just not.
The victim is Pax, and the four puppies who died.
For her to just deny that what she said in her complaint,
that you could not have been any more clear about, Tanya,
was that the one-day delay is what caused the problems with Pax.
But that is inconsistent with what her text messages showed.
She was pissed off because the defendant didn't take her to her vet
who had already misdiagnosed saying that antibiotics weren't necessary.
They clearly were. This dog was in dire need, as her puppies were.
So she absolutely, in my opinion, has not made out her burden
that this was the defendant's responsibility in the least.
She shouldn't get that $10,000 for the death of the puppies,
and likewise the countersuit. You know, the reason there was no contract
was because the idea was, the defendant was going to take two of the puppies.
The fact that the defendant chose to give all six healthy puppies
back to the stud owner is not the fault of the plaintiff at all.
Not at all. So I don't think that either of them deserves a penny.
I agree with you. I mean, it's a situation
where two people are trying to fit a tragedy into a lawsuit.
There's just no lawsuit here.
I don't have any basis of knowing how or why these puppies died.
We have no competent expert testimony,
and in fact her whole theory of the case is belied by the text messages.
And the countersuit, I think, is a retaliatory add-on.
You're suing me for $10,000? I'm going to sue you for $10,000.
All I will say is that, in the grand scheme of things,
the work that the defendant put in.
-The care. Oh, my goodness. -She did a lot of work.
I'm not gonna get to a place where I'm gonna say, "She did so much work."
When you're taking that position, if you're a breeder
and you're gonna whelp and you're gonna do that--
And she's done it before, so it wasn't a surprise to her as to what she took on,
and I think she did it well.
I don't feel as angry at the plaintiff, she did bring her to the doctor,
she relied on her vet and he's not here to say that's what he really said,
or that's not what he really said to her.
So I think neither one of them has met their burden of proof.
This is a very sad situation.
The only one that suffered here was Pax for losing four of her litter.
So to me, neither one of them has met their burden.
I think they're each hurting in their own way,
and I think that these were both lawsuits that were brought from a broken heart.
Well said.
Court is back in session. Parties are reminded you're still under oath.
[Levy] Thank you, Byrd.
It took a long time to get where we are right now.
We could have spent another two hours on the case.
The one thing that strikes me, however, Miss Chaney, is that
you're still committed to your cause as you stand here, and I don't blame you.
I know that you love Pax very much and you wanted those puppies very badly.
Not just for money purposes, but also because they were living things
and you would never do anything to hurt an animal.
You're a vet assistant, I get that.
But you come in here and you point your finger at the defendant
and you're trying to lay blame.
In your mind-- You have June 14th in your mind
as the day that things went wrong with her.
But I'm gonna share with you the text message you sent to her on the same day.
"I really appreciate all this extra work you've been putting in.
There is no way I can thank you enough. I could not have found a better mentor."
-Mm-hm. -And between the 14th of June
and the 28th of June--
That was after she then took her to her vet.
--she was providing, text messages show, 24-hour care to Pax and the puppies.
She moved and slept on an air mattress in the living room
right next to where Pax was with the puppies, with her daughter.
She hand-fed the puppies. She was weighing them every day.
She provided heating blankets and lamps when they had to be removed,
when Pax was stepping on them.
She cleaned the puppies when they had rashes,
cleaning their eyes when pus was coming out,
and she made multiple calls to her vet with respect to the puppies.
So to me, whether this was something that could have been prevented,
or whether not, we may never know.
But what we do know, all of us, is that you failed to meet your burden
to prove the death of those four puppies were caused
in any way, shape or form by the defendant.
But likewise, unfortunately, the deal that you had was what it was.
For whatever happened between the stud owner and you,
that's beyond our jurisdiction, we can't address that.
And it's because of that failure
to establish that there was a binding contract with this plaintiff,
that we have denied your claim.
So again, notwithstanding what both of you have gone through,
it is the decision of this court
that both your complaint and the counterclaim are dismissed.
This case is now concluded. Parties are excused. You may step out.
Um, this just obviously was just a bad situation
that shouldn't have even happened in the first place.
She didn't see how often I was messaging her,
trying to get everything taken care of
and show how sick the dog really was.
I wasn't there so I didn't know she was in trouble.
I left all the decisions mostly up to her. I would ask everything for approval.
I wasn't able to bring her to the vet myself, or else I definitely would have.
It's expensive. It's heartbreaking.
This was obviously not a good experience and I'm not doing it again.
[narrator] Does someone owe you money?
Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media at Tribunal Justice.