Custody of pet
Displaying 41 - 50 of 58
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Finn v. Anderson | This replevin action concerns ownership of an "indoor/outdoor" cat named "Sylvester" or "Marshmallow," depending on perspective. In September 2018, plaintiffs found an unidentified, thin, white cat hanging around their house looking for food. After several months of feeding the cat, in January 2019, plaintiffs decided to bring the cat inside and take it to a vet, where he was de-wormed, vaccinated, treated for fleas, microchipped, and dubbed "Sylvester." A few weeks later, Sylvester accidentally got out of plaintiff's house where plaintiff found out from a neighbor that the cat was taken back by the Defendant, who claimed that Sylvester is actually "Marshmallow" and had been plaintiff's indoor/outdoor cat since 2009. Plaintiff then filed a replevin action against defendant to recover legal possession of Sylvester, aka Marshmallow. The City Court, New York, Jamestown, Chautauqua County first noted that, regardless of how people feel about their dogs and cats, New York law treats them as personal property and even "chattel." While the court observed that the trend has been the "de-chattelization" of household pets in New York, it has not gone so far as to adopt a "best interests" standard to replace the superior possessory rights standard. The court noted that there is inherent difficulty in applying a best interests standard with pets because there is no practical way of gauging a pet's feelings and assessing its interests. The court further stated that New York Courts have developed a “quasi-interests based standard” for pets that considers highly subjective factors. Significantly, the court declared the following: "[w]hile it appears the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, has not addressed the issue, this Court concludes that it is time to declare that a pet should no longer be considered “personal property” like a table or car." Thus, using a "best for all concerned" articulated in Raymond v. Lachmann in 1999, this court weighed the factors whether to place Sylvester/Marshmallow with plaintiff or defendant based on the care provided by both parties. The court found, in a very close decision, that the “best interests of all concerned” test leaves the custody of the cat, Sylvester/Marshmallow, with the defendant. While the court was convinced that plaintiffs were genuinely concerned for Sylvester's/Marshmallow's welfare and spent time and money on his care, it appears that Sylvester/Marshmallow may have “voted with his feet” to return to his home of ten years with the defendant and her children. The Court found in favor of the defendant, and plaintiff's claim was dismissed. |
| Detailed Discussion of the Laws Regulating Rescue and Foster Care Programs for Companion Animals | This article will focus primarily on the rescue and foster care issues. Some of the types of laws that impact companion animal rescue and foster care organizations include legislative definitions, licensing, sterilization and vaccination, pet limit laws, zoning and nuisance laws, tethering laws, Breed Specific Legislation (or BSL), tort liability, and reimbursement for medical care in cruelty cases. While some examples will be given here, a rescue organization or foster care provider should check the specific state and city laws where they are located. |
| DeSanctis v. Pritchard |
|
| De Lanoy v. Taylor | This Oregon case involves a dispute over who now owns a female whippet dog named "Isis." Isis was adopted from the local humane society and lived with the plaintiff and his family until 2014. In the summer of 2014, plaintiff asked his friend Rich to keep Isis while plaintiff moved to Florida. Both plaintiff and Rich understood that Rich was just caring for Isis and that plaintiff remained Isis' owner. Defendant is Rich's ex-girlfriend had a different understanding; that plaintiff had abandoned Isis and, as such, Isis became defendant's property. In 2016, plaintiff filed an action for replevin against defendant, seeking immediate return of Isis. Defendant countered with a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the dog was gifted to Rich - who subsequently abandoned the dog - and so defendant became the rightful owner. A bench trial ruled in favor of plaintiff, finding insufficient evidence to establish that plaintiff had gifted the dog or that Rich had abandoned the dog. On appeal, defendant raises a single procedural error, that the court erred by granting plaintiff replevin the procedures in ORCP 83 A were not followed. Notably, the court found that there was no ruling against defendant with regard to noncompliance of a court rule. More importantly, there was no challenge to the court's disposition of the declaratory judgement counterclaim. Thus, defendant presented no error in the disposition of her counterclaim. Accordingly, because the trial court declared plaintiff to be the lawful owner of Isis, and no one has challenged that declaration, the court did not reach defendant's arguments about the proper procedure for a replevin claim. |
| Custody of Pets in Divorce | |
| Conte v. Fossett | Plaintiff and defendant were a non-married couple that shared ownership of a miniature dauschund. Defendant asked for the dog, but plaintiff repeatedly declined. Eventually, Plaintiff gave in and purchased the dog for defendant. The parties shared ownership, expenses, and labor involved in caring for the dog. Eventually, the parties broke up, and began a shared-custody arrangement for the dog. However, the relationship between the parties further soured, and defendant kept the dog in her possession. Plaintiff filed suit for sole possession of the dog. The trial court found that the dog was a gift from plaintiff to defendant in contemplation of the relationship, and awarded possession to plaintiff. On appeal, the court found that there was no basis to assume that the dog was a gift given in anticipation of marriage. Therefore, defendant had no basis to pursue recovery of the dog. |
| CA - Theft - § 487e. Grand theft; dog exceeding value of $950 | These provisions of the California Penal Code deal with stealing companion animals. A person who feloniously steals, takes, or carries away a companion animal of another which is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) is guilty of grand theft. If a person steals or maliciously takes an animal of another for purposes of sale, medical research, slaughter, or other commercial use (or does so by fraud or false representation), he or she commits a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 1 year or in the state prison. |
| CA - Dog, collar - § 2011.5. Removal of collar from hunting dog; unlawful without written permission | This California statute makes it unlawful to remove a hunting dog's collar without having written permission from the dog's owner. |
| CA - Divorce - § 2605. Care and ownership of pet animal | This California law, effective January of 2019, allows to court to enter an order, at the request of a party, for a party to care for the pet animal prior to the entry of a final order. The existence of an order providing for the care of a pet animal during the course of proceedings for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation of the parties shall not have any impact on the court's final determination of ownership of the pet animal. |
| C.M. v. E.M. | This is a family law case concerning, among other issues, the euthanasia of a family companion animal. Defendant argues that Plaintiff violated an order in place by putting the family dog down without reason, necessity, and justification, and that the dog was an emotional support animal whose custody had not been determined. Defendant also argues that plaintiff did not allow defendant the opportunity to spend time with the dog before it was put down, and that he suffered emotional distress due to the dog's death. The court found that the euthanasia of the family dog did not violate the order in place, because the companion animal was not classified as "property" or an "asset" under the order in place, and that animals are afforded additional protection under the Family Court Act. Whether the animal was put down unnecessarily could be considered animal cruelty, but that inquiry would need to be determined in a criminal proceeding, and criminal charges were not filed. Accordingly, the court held that plaintiff did not violate the order by euthanizing the family dog. |