Divorce or Custody
Displaying 11 - 20 of 68
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Causa Rol C-1533-2021, 2022 - Bambu & Igor- Chile |
Las partes mantuvieron una relación durante la cual adoptaron dos perros, Igor y Bambú. Con el tiempo, la pareja se separó y discreparon sobre qué hacer respecto a la custodia y propiedad de los perros. El demandante interpuso esta demanda después de que la demandada le prohibiera ver a los perros y solicitó que se le reconociera como copropietario con todos los derechos sobre los mismos. El tribunal aplicó una prueba de tres partes para poner fin al goce gratuito de los perros por parte de la demandada, en la que decidió que el demandante tenía derecho a la propiedad en comunidad con la demandada. Para ello, el tribunal analizó aspectos del lugar que ocupan los perros en el contexto jurídico, como su condición de propiedad y los únicos vínculos afectivos que se establecen entre el propietario y la mascota. |
| Causa Rol C-1533-2021, 2022 - Igor and Bambu- Chile | The parties were in a relationship where they adopted two dogs, Igor and Bambu. The pair eventually split, and disagreed about what to do regarding the custody and ownership of the dogs. Plaintiff brought this action after being prohibited by Defendant from seeing the dogs and requested that he be recognized as co-owner with all rights therein. The court applied a three-part test to cease Defendant’s free enjoyment of the dogs, in which it decided that Plaintiff was entitled to ownership in the community with Defendant. In doing so, the court discussed aspects of the dogs’ place within legal contexts, such as their status as property, and the unique bonds formed between owner and pet. |
| Colucci v. Colucci | This Maine case is an appeal of a divorce proceeding where one party argues the court erred in awarding the parties' dogs to another. In 2017, Suan Colucci filed a complaint for divorce against her husband, Stephen Colucci. In 2019, the court entered a judgment granting the divorce and awarded both dogs “set aside to [Susan] as her exclusive property.” On appeal by Stephen, this court found that undisputed evidence established that "Louise" the dog was acquired five years before marriage, and thus, was nonmarital property. Because no evidence was presented to which of the parties actually acquired Louise in 2010, the judgment was vacated and remanded for further proceedings to determine ownership of Louise. |
| 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. |
| Custody of Pets in Divorce | |
| DE - Divorce - § 1513. Disposition of marital property; imposition of lien; insurance policies | This Delaware law on disposition of marital property with divorce was amended in 2023 to address the needs of companion animals owned during marriage. Per susbsection (g)(1), if a court finds a companion animal is marital property, the court shall take into considering the "well-being of the companion animal." In doing so, the court may consider factors like the ability of each party to support and care for the companion animal, the attachment between the animal and the person, and the time and effort spent with the animal during marriage. If the parties are awarded a shared interest in the companion animal, then future disposition to limited to those situations mentioned in the law. |
| Desanctis v. Pritchard |
The trial court dismissed a couple's complaint asking the court to enforce a settlement agreement which provided for shared custody of the couple's dog. The appellate court upheld that decision, holding that the settlement agreement was void to the extent that it attempted to award visitation or shared custody with personal property. |
| DeSanctis v. Pritchard |
|
| Detailed Discussion of Divorce and Pets | |
| Detailed Discussion: Knick-Knack, Paddy-Whack, Give the Dog a Home?: Custody Determination of Companion Animals Upon Guardian Divorce |
|