My cat, Manganese, has incredibly poor couch etiquette. Not only that, I think that I can prove this in ANY Court of Law!!!
Examine these actual photographs, taken from a hidden camera. (The camera was hidden in a light fixture in the ceiling.)
Exhibit A shows the Plaintiff, (ME)
and the Defendant (Manganese, the Cat)
in a RARE instance of couch harmony.
Both are aligned along the long (vertical) axis of the couch. Both can stretch out.
This photograph was taken at 8:55 P.M., while both subjects were preparing to watch the Drew Carey show.
Now, let us look at another photograph, taken just a few minutes later...
Looking closely at Exhibit B, one can CLEARLY SEE that the Defendant (Cat) has moved into a HORIZONTAL ASPECT with relation to the couch, in contrast to the PRIOR VERTICAL ASPECT ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
[Also notice the Defendant (Cat) now pretends no interest in the Drew Carey show; in fact, the Defendant (Cat) now has placed her BACKSIDE to the Drew Carey show!]
Notice how this has twisted the Plaintiff's (My) spinal column and hips into a totally unnatural position, creating the potential for SEVERE SPINAL ABNORMALITIES!
A secondary effect of this INJURIOUS action by the defendant (Cat) is that in order for the Plaintiff (Me) to lay on his back and at the same time to watch the Drew Carey show, he must now twist his neck to an extraordinary degree, because of the stupendous spinal dislocations caused by the Defendant's (Cat's) horizontal attitude, versus it's prior vertical attitude.
Additional damages COULD be awarded due to the Plaintiff's (My) Right Foot being forced off the couch, and possibly even being displaced from its initial position of being UNDERNEATH THE BLANKET to a position of being TOTALLY UNCOVERED!!!!!
This egregious behavior by the Defendant (Cat) continues despite repeated efforts of the Plaintiff (Me) at re-positioning the Defendant (Cat) into the mutually beneficial VERTICAL ASPECT vs. the detrimental HORIZONTAL ASPECT.
The VERTICAL RE-POSITIONING of the Defendant (Cat) rarely lasts longer than a five-minute period.
Clearly, ownership of the couch is the main issue here.
The Plaintiff's (My) case is based on actual receipts for the purchase and ownership of the couch.
The Defendants (Cat's) defense is, "The couch is MINE."
Copyright © Stephen Capps
March 27, 1998
This is the response from a lawyer:
It sounds to me like the cat is trying to gain legal possession of the couch via adverse
possession which requires open, notorious, hostile, continuous, without legal claim or
right for a statutory period of time. Cat's actions are interfering with Plaintiff's
peaceful possession of his property. How to deal with this? Let's first look at
gaining control of property via Adverse Possession:
1. Open -- Cat, when Plaintiff is present, will get on couch and sit there
right in front of the owner. Cat is not trying to hide his intentions.
2. Notorious -- Need I say more? Cats are **notorious** for trying to take
ownership over all their Masters' possessions, including the Owner!
3. Hostile -- Cat will remain in a horizontal position long after it is no
longer welcome in that position and will not remain in vertical position (as
repositioned by Owner) for longer than 5 minutes. One would think that
after constant repositioning, Cat would get the hint. His behavior is not
allowed and Cat knows it.
4. Continuous -- "Cat's egregious behavior continues despite repeated
efforts of the Plaintiff of repositioning the Defendant (Cat).
5. Without legal claim or right -- Plaintiff owns the couch. He has
receipts that show his proof of ownership.
6. Statutory period -- No facts to address this element and I don't know
which state or county in which this situation has occurred. Remains to be seen.
Other Issues:
Trespass (Cat could be liable for damage to property or rent for use.)
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:
Defenses:
Privilege (Cat's have been allowed the privilege of couch sitting
for centuries. It is a special privilege of being a cat.)
Who owns who here? Cat's own their masters, not the other way around. A
Master owns his property along with any of the chattel's property.
Plaintiff is the Chattel in this case.
Continuous element of Adverse Possession not continuous: Plaintiff has
continually made clear that he owns the couch by his constant repositioning of
Defendant, Cat.
Damages:
Cost of Couch -- If Cat wants couch, he can buy it from Plaintiff as all
the elements of Adverse possession have not been met. (minus wear and tear,
excluding any damages caused by cat.)
Mental Anguish and suffering: Plaintiff under constant mental stress over this.
Medical Bills and possible L.O.T. (loss of TV as opposed to loss of
earnings or L.O.E.)
Rent -- cat should own up and pay his fair share of his side of the couch.
Cat is a tenant (will not get into what type of tenant -- maybe life tenant
and couch will revert back to Owner? Rule against perpetuities? (just had to
throw that one in there just because)
Damages -- for cat scratches, damage to couch
by Danielle
Other Intentional Torts (clearly not "negligence" as cat's actions were
intentionally calculated to bother or disturb plaintiff's peaceful
possession of couch as well as his peace of mind -- medical problems were
consequential to Cat's intentional actions.)
Medical Bills -- for Plaintiff's rehabilitation
March 27, 1998
