This is a dispute about who owns a dog named Oliver. Dannielle Zephier purchased Oliver in 2008. Oliver lived with Zephier and her other dog, Alex, in Minnesota. But Zephier eventually moved to California for school in about 2013. After Zephier moved, she needed someone to care for her dogs because her California housing did not permit dogs. Zephier and Derrick Agate Jr. had briefly dated and were close friends around this time. Agate, who lived in Minnesota, agreed to care for Zephier’s dogs beginning in either 2014 or 2015. Their agreement was informal and did not contain an explicit end date. The parties communicated often while Agate cared for the dogs, and Zephier visited the dogs in Minnesota.

Zephier brought her smaller dog, Alex, back to California with her in November 2016. But Oliver remained in Minnesota with Agate.

Almost a year later, Zephier visited Minnesota and attempted to visit Oliver but Agate suddenly changed his mind and refused to permit the visit. Zephier called the police to report Oliver as stolen, but the police declined to intervene. After several attempts to communicate with Agate and reclaim Oliver, Zephier sued him in conciliation court in Minnesota. The conciliation court permitted Agate to keep the dog and ordered him to pay Zephier. Unhappy with this result, Zephier removed the case to district court, which vacated the conciliation court’s judgment.

The district court conducted a bench trial. Zephier and Agate testified, and the court received several exhibits from both parties. After taking the matter under advisement, the district court issued an order finding that Zephier had abandoned Oliver and denied her Oliver’s recovery. Zephier appeals. Is this a case of abandonment or bailment? How did the appellate court rule?