Love that decision, and I too think that judge sounds awesome.
My first "aha" moment when reading the decision was when the Plaintiff presented a copy of a joint ownership agreement. Hahaha. Not very believable. Who does that? Who would sit down with someone and think to put in writing the fact that they are co-owning a pet?
Reading through the judge's Findings where he does NOT give a lot of credit to Cornelia or Howard Tromp:
1. Regarding joined ownership: Judge: "I do not credit the balance of his (Howard Tromp) testimony."
2. "I do not find that plaintiff's Exhibit 3 is a valid agreement..."
3. "I find it entirely inconsistent..."
4. "I do not credit Mr. Tromp's testimony about Coco's proclivity to wiggle out of her collar ..."
5. "I do not credit Mr. Tomp's testimony that he had given Coco a bath on October 27, 2014..."
6. "I find that Ms. Haydinjak realized it would be difficult to establish consistent ownership of the dog insofar as she lives in Switzerland for 6 months of the year. Therefore she needed to present the theory of co-ownership to avoid being legally divested of the animal under the ordinance that allows that owners loose ownership when their animals are out of their control and wild or haggard.
7. ............ I do not accept her (Ms. Haydinjak) description of the accident as being entirely the fault of the taxi driver. It is unlikely such an accident would have occurred if the dog had been leashed......