The Ohio Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of Marissa Watkins in a custody dispute over a dog named Bella. The court's decision, issued on June 29, 2026, confirms that Watkins is the rightful owner of Bella, a matter that has significant implications for both parties involved. Brandon Phillips, who had claimed ownership of the dog, will not regain custody after the court's ruling.
This case, Phillips v. Watkins (25CA0024-M), centers around the ownership of Bella, which has been a contentious issue since the couple's breakup in 2021. The court's decision is important as it highlights the complexities of pet ownership disputes, particularly in romantic relationships, and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Brandon Phillips and Marissa Watkins were in a long-term romantic relationship that began over a decade ago. Their dispute over Bella began after their breakup in August 2021. Phillips filed a small claims action against Watkins in the Wadsworth Municipal Court, seeking the return of Bella, who he claimed was his dog. However, Watkins countered with a civil assault claim and sought compensatory damages, asserting that Bella was a gift from Phillips.
The case initially started in small claims court, but the judge directed Phillips to transfer the case to the civil docket since small claims court only handles monetary disputes. After the transfer, a three-day bench trial took place, where both parties presented their testimonies and evidence regarding Bella's ownership.
During the trial, Phillips argued that he purchased Bella as a birthday gift for Watkins in October 2020. He claimed that he had been the primary caretaker during their relationship, providing for Bella's needs and expenses. Conversely, Watkins maintained that Bella was indeed a gift from Phillips, which vested her with ownership. She testified that she had taken care of Bella and covered all her expenses, especially after Phillips had been incarcerated.
Judge Scott Stevenson presided over the case and ultimately ruled in favor of Watkins. The court found that Phillips “failed to meet his burden of proof as to ownership of Bella,” affirming that Bella was a gift to Watkins. The judge noted that the evidence presented supported Watkins' claims, particularly her testimony and that of her mother, who corroborated her account of the gift.
In his appeal, Phillips raised several assignments of error, arguing that the trial court's findings were not final and appealable, and that he was the original owner of Bella. He contended that the lack of a transfer certificate under Ohio law (R.C. 955.11(B)) invalidated Watkins' claim of ownership. However, the court dismissed these arguments, stating that Phillips had not preserved the issue for appellate review and that the evidence supported Watkins' claim of ownership.
The court emphasized that Phillips had the burden of proving his claim of ownership and that Watkins provided credible evidence that Bella was a gift. The court noted that Phillips had been in exclusive possession of Bella for a period but failed to demonstrate that he had the legal right to claim ownership over her.
The ruling has significant implications for both parties moving forward. For Watkins, it reaffirms her status as Bella's owner, allowing her to continue caring for the dog without fear of legal challenges from Phillips. For Phillips, the ruling marks the end of his legal battle for Bella, as the court's decision is final and binding.
This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in pet custody disputes, particularly in situations where ownership is contested between former partners. The court's decision may influence future cases involving similar circumstances, as it underscores the importance of evidence and credibility in establishing ownership rights.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Phillips will seek further legal recourse or if he will accept the court's ruling. The court's decision is final, and any further appeals would need to demonstrate a significant legal error in the trial court's proceedings.