Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: April 5, 2019
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comMany people consider pets to be part of the family. In several states, the law is starting to reflect the love for man’s best friend by no longer treating pets as mere property and resolving pet custody disputes based on the “best interests of the pet.”
Disputes over pet ownership are particularly common when a pet’s “parents” break up. A 2014 survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers found that pet custody hearings had increased 22 percent in the preceding five years. Dogs are most often the subject of disputes, accounting for 88 percent of the cases. Cats comprised just 5 percent, while horses made up 1 percent. The “other” category, which totaled 6 percent, included an iguana, python, African grey parrot and a 130-pound turtle.
In many cases, the issue isn’t that the pet has significant financial value, but that both pet “parents” have a strong emotional attachment to the animal. In other cases, one party will use the pet as leverage to get something else that they want. In either case, disputes over pet ownership can make an already stressful divorce even more contentious.
Pets are traditionally considered personal property. Pet custody laws try to strike a balance between treating the family dog like one of the children and treating it like a coffee table or big screen TV.
In 2017, Alaska became the first state to enact a pet “best interest” law. Illinois followed suit in 2018. Public Act 100-0422 amends the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act to allow courts to create joint responsibility agreements in divorce cases where the parties disagree over the custody of an animal. The statute states:
If the court finds that a companion animal of the parties is a marital asset, it shall allocate the sole or joint ownership of and responsibility for a companion animal of the parties. In issuing an order under this subsection, the court shall take into consideration the well-being of the companion animal.
California is the latest state to adopt the “best interest” standard in pet custody disputes. Its new law, AB 2274, provides that a court, at the request of a party in the proceeding, may enter an order, before the final determination of ownership of a pet animal, to require a party to care for the pet animal. Courts may also assign sole or joint ownership of a pet animal, taking into consideration the care of the pet animal. Factors to be considered include:
California is the largest state to pass a pet custody law, with more states will likely follow. In New Jersey, pets are still considered property. However, the Appellate Division did recognize in Houseman v. Dare, 966 A. 2d 24 (2009), that pets have special subjective value that makes it difficult to treat them like ordinary property.
Some couples are taking a proactive approach by turning to prenuptial agreements. Issues that the “pet prenup” may address include who will take custody and care for the dog, as well as who will pay for pet insurance and veterinary expenses. In some cases, couples will establish joint custody or agree that the pet will follow the custody of any children. Agreements may also designate a veterinarian to make any medical related decisions should the parties be unable to reach a mutual decision.
Pet custody isn’t just an issue for married pet owners. Non-married couples can still execute an agreement that addresses what happens to their pet should the relationship end. Pet rescue organizations are also increasingly asking prospective pet owners if they have a plan to address a potential breakup on their adoption applications.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
Author: Dan Brecher
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!