Dog custody question

[no bait nate]

So this is not something I'd like to be looking for advice on or posting on the site but I thought others may have ran into this problem in the past. My ex fiance is trying to do some sort of shared custody of my hunting lab I purchased while we were living together for the last few years. I do not want to do this because she has already not been cooperating with any sort of training or rules for the dog and has stated she wants to spoil the dog when it's with her so it doesn't preform or act as well for me. My dog is a two year old lab that is on the verge of being very good or going on the down hill slide, and I don't want that to happen. If anyone has ever run into this problem or has any advice on what I can do or contact info of someone who may, I would surely appreciate it. Thanks

[bobbymalone]

Why cant you just tell her it's your dog and she can get bent?

It's not like you are legally bound to the ex and it's not like the dog is a kid.

Just throwing it out there.

I had a friend that tried this dog custody thing with an ex and it lasted just about long enough for it to get weird with him picking up the dog from the new boyfriend's house. Then he went with the option I suggested above and said he should have just done that from the get go.

Sorry or congratulations about the ex-fiance, however you want to take it. Good luck.

[mainbutter]

It's not fair to the dog for multiple reasons. Don't do it. I know nothing about your relationship, but in general my suggestion with breakups and dealing with ex-s is to break cleanly with the goal of never interacting again.

[WaveWacker]

So not married. You state that YOU were the one that purchased the dog. I would do what was stated in the first reply. Tough cookies to the ex and no, you can't have it at all.

[motley man]

Agreed, it's yours.

[401TE]

While I haven't done any specific legal research on this question, my gut is telling me a pet is treated like a piece of property not a child. If you bought the dog, paid for all associated costs (vet bills, food, etc.) the dog is yours and she has no claim otherwise. If she's paid a significant part of these costs I'd say she at least has a claim for reimbursement of those costs.

That said, I'd tell her no way and don't let her take the dog. If she comes over and grabs it, call the cops. I highly doubt she's going to hire an attorney. More likely she's just trying to get under your skin and/or misses the company of the dog now that she's on her own.

[LightningBG]

Just take the dog and be done with it.

[Steve Foss]

I agree with all these other guys. Your dog. Clean break. Plus, a spoiled pet dog becomes a pack leader when it's with the one who spoils it. Then you have to re-establish yourself as the pack leader when the dog comes home. Confusing, and not fair to the dog.

If she stated she wants to spoil the dog to ruin it for you as a hunting dog, you can bet that's just what she wants to do. Also, why in the world would a feller wanna have an ex-fiancee with a strong tie to his current and future life?

How about: She keeps the ring (which by manners and custom is hers to keep as a gift anyway) and you keep the dog. And neither one keeps the other on cell phone speed dial.

[Dave S]

You bought a hunting dog......she wants a pet. I agree with those who say tough ****. She can get her own dog.

[LightningBG]

How about: She keeps the ring (which by manners and custom is hers to keep as a gift anyway)

Legally, this isn't the case. The ring is one half of a contract, the other half is the promise to marry. When the engagement breaks off, the contract is not complete and the ring goes back to the giver.

[bobbymalone]

Legally, this isn't the case. The ring is one half of a contract, the other half is the promise to marry. When the engagement breaks off, the contract is not complete and the ring goes back to the giver.

There is a legal precedent for that?

[Ice Shack Baby]

I found this on the web. I am sure that there are several sources, but laws tend to be similar from state to state. Although this is from a divorce site, same considerations should be applicable. I am not an attourney and not giving you advice, but this is what I found. Sorry as usual legal the mumbo jumbo is rather long winded. From divourcesource.com

WHO GETS FLUFFY? DIVISION OF PETS IN DIVORCE CASES

© 1999 National Legal Research Group, Inc.

"Old dog Tray's ever faithful, grief cannot drive him away; he's gentle, he is kind; I'll never, never find a better friend than old dog Tray."

Stephen C. Foster, Old Dog Tray

The affection that people feel for their pets is real and palpable. That affection often leads parties to a divorce to argue by analogy to custody law that possession of the family pet should be decided on a "best interests of the pet" standard, separate and apart from the principles of classification and division of marital property. The courts have long recognized and commented upon the tension between custody and property law when it comes to pets.

One of the first decisions to comment upon considerations that a divorce court must undertake when considering the ownership of a dog was Akers v. Sellers, 114 Ind. App. 660, 54 N.E.2d 779 (1944), an action in replevin. The Appellate Court of Indiana, en banc, stated the august nature of the proceedings thus:

This is a controversy over the ownership and possession of a Boston bull terrier dog upon which the [husband], while declining to measure its true value to him in mere money, has placed an arbitrary value of $25. Were we to judge the importance of these proceedings by such a fictitious standard of value we would be inclined to resent this appeal as a trespass on the court's time and an imposition on our patience, of which quality we trust we are possessed in reasonable degree. But we have in mind Senator Vest's immortal eulogy on the noble instincts of a dog so we approach the question involved without any feeling of injured dignity but with a full realization that no man can be censured for the prosecution of his rights to the full limit of the law when such rights involve the comfort derived from the companionship of man's best friend.

54 N.E.2d at 779. After this introduction, we are told that the husband was given the dog during the marriage as a gift from a veterinarian. During the divorce proceedings, there was no formal disposition of the dog. The wife, being awarded the marital home, came into possession of the dog. The husband thereafter brought a suit in replevin for the return of the dog. The appellate court opined:

Whether the interests and desires of the dog, in [the divorce proceedings], should be the polar star pointing the way to a just and wise decision or whether the matter should be deter mined on the brutal and unfeeling basis of legal title, is a problem concerning which we express no opinion. We recognize, however, the tragedy of the dog's consignment to the wife if, in fact, his love, affection, and loyalty are for the husband.

Id. The court ultimately held that the trial court's decision, based upon a finding of fact that the husband had given the dog to the wife during the marriage, was supported by the record and not subject to attack on appeal.

The divorce courts, however, have not shied away from the Solomonic task of dividing a pet, thus leading to an evolving body of law concerning who gets Fluffy. This article will review case law concerning property division principles as they are applied to pets. This article will conclude that although a best interests of the pet standard is not appropriate when awarding the family pet, the court can and should consider who would care for a pet when making its ultimate division of marital property.

One of the first cases to consider the propriety of an award of the family pet to a party in a divorce action was Ballas v. Ballas, 178 Cal. App. 2d 570, 3 Cal. Rptr. 11 (1960). In that case, the wife was granted a divorce on the grounds of cruelty. Her single complaint on appeal was that the court erred in awarding a Pekingese dog and a Volkswagon to the husband.

The wife's evidence was that, although the dog was acquired during the marriage, it was purchased with her separate funds, titled in her name, and remained in her possession up until the judgment of the court. The husband had no evidence that the dog was community property other than his listing it as such. On this basis, the appellate court reversed the trial court, holding that "it is immaterial whether the dog was community property or the separate property of plaintiff." 3 Cal. Rptr. at 13. In other words, the court awarded the dog to the wife be cause she was the one who cared for it. Clearly, if the court was stating that property division principles were irrelevant, the court was employing a best interests of the dog test.

Perhaps picking up on the best interests of the dog test in Ballas, in Arrington v. Arrington, 613 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981), the trial court had appointed the wife as the managing conservator of the parties' dog, Bonnie Lou, granting the husband reasonable visitation rights with the dog. The husband appealed, arguing that he should have been named managing conservator of the dog.

The appeals court would have none of it, wisely refusing to apply a best interests of the dog test:

Bonnie Lou is a very fortunate little dog with two humans to shower upon her attention and genuine love frequently not received by human children from their divorced parents. All too often, children of broken homes are used by their parents to vent spite on each other or they use them as human ropes in a post divorce tug-of-war. In trying to hurt each other, they often wreak immeasurable damage on the innocent pawns they profess to love. Dogs involved in divorce cases are luckier than children in divorce cases they do not have to be treated as humans. The office of "managing conservator" was created for the benefit of human children, not canine.

Id. at 569. The court went on to state that dogs are property and must be treated as such. The court then concluded that the dog was the wife's property, but it hoped that both the husband and the wife would "continue to enjoy the companionship of Bonnie Lou for years to come within the guidelines set by the trial court." Id. In essence, the court affirmed the award of the dog to the wife, with visitation rights granted to the husband. Again, although the court applied property principles to determine the ownership of the dog, a best interests of the dog test was at play. How else to explain visitation rights?

More recent cases have made the test for division of a family pet clearer. A court must first classify the pet as marital or separate property, as it would any other item of property. The court may then consider, however, when making the ultimate decision of to whom to award the pet, who would best care for the pet.

In In re Marriage of Stewart, 356 N.W.2d 611 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984), the husband gave the wife a dog for Christmas during the marriage. When the parties separated, however, the dog remained with the husband, and the dog often accompanied the husband to work. The trial court held that "custody of the dog should be with [the husband]." Id. at 613 (emphasis added). The appellate court took issue with the characterization of the award of the dog as a "custody" order:

A dog is personal property and while courts should not put a family pet in a position of being abused or uncared for, we do not have to determine the best interests of a pet.

Id. The court then classified the pet as marital property and concluded: "We find no reason to disturb the trial court's decision on the award of the dog to [the husband]. We affirm the decision of the trial court." Id.; see also Gladu v. Gladu, No. 69, 1990.TN.524 (http://www.versuslaw.com) (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 1990) (issue of award of family dog should have gone to master with other items of personal property).

The most recent case to discuss the issue of equitable distribution of a pet was Bennett v. Bennett, 655 So. 2d 109 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995). In that case, the trial court awarded "custody" of the parties' dog, Roddy, to the husband, with visitation rights granted to the wife. After judgment, the husband filed for rehearing, and the wife filed a motion for contempt and a change of custody because the husband was interfering with her visitation rights. The court granted the wife's motion, giving her visitation with the dog every other month.

The appellate court reversed, holding first that a dog is personal property, that this particular dog was the husband's premarital property, and that there simply is no authority for a court to award visitation with personal property. Of more concern to the court was the supervision problems that it envisioned were the parties to be granted visitation rights to property:

Our courts are overwhelmed with the supervision of custody, visitation, and support matters related to the protection of our children. We cannot undertake the same responsibility as to animals.

Id. at 110-11. The court thus disposed of the problem by finding that the dog was premarital property. The court may have been willing to go so far as to decide to whom to award the dog if the dog had been marital property. But it certainly was not willing to grant visitation rights. Cf. In re Marriage of Tevis-Bleich, 23 Kan. App. 2d 982, 939 P.2d 966 (1997) (enforcing separation agreement granting husband right to visit family pet); In re Marriage of Patchett, 156 Or. App. 69, 964 P.2d 1114 (1998) (reversing judgment holding wife in contempt for failing to turn over pet wallaby "Skippy" to husband pursuant to separation agreement, where actions of wife were not "willful" since wallaby was known to escape on occasion).

Some courts have managed to avoid the question of the best interests of the pet by employing a Solomonic division: one pet to one party, and another pet to the other party. This was found to be acceptable in Bolan v. Bolan, 32 Ark. App. 65, 796 S.W.2d 358 (1990). There, the court stated:

As her final point, [the wife] argues that the chancellor erred in awarding the family dog to [the husband]. The record discloses that the parties had two pets, a cat and a dog. [The wife] received the cat, and we cannot conclude that the chancellor's decision as to the dog was clearly erroneous.

796 S.W.2d at 362. But on what basis did the court award the cat to the wife and the dog to the husband? As a matter of classification, or as a matter of division? Or was the court engaging in a sexual stereotyping by affirming an award of a cat to the wife and a dog to the husband?

Finally, an interesting argument concerning the family dog was raised in S.L.J. v. R.J., 778 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). In that case, the husband claimed that the court erred in classifying the family pet as marital property, because the dog had been purchased as a gift for the parties' son. The court held that if it were true that the dog belonged to the parties' son, then the son would be the aggrieved party and the husband had no standing to raise the issue.

In conclusion, a family pet is an item of personal property, and principles concerning the classification of this property apply. Once it is determined, however, that the family pet is marital property or that the court has the authority to award the family pet to one party or the other, then the court may consider who would better care for the pet and who has the greater attachment to the pet. This is really no different from the many cases that award a particular piece of property to the party who asserts a greater sentimental value to an item of property. E.g., Starnes v. Starnes, 680 So. 2d 572 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) (error to award to wife the hus band's childhood toys); Uluhogian v. Uluhogian, 86 Ill. App. 3d 654, 408 N.E.2d 108 (1980) (court should have awarded gold cross to husband, where husband's uncle gave cross to husband before marriage); In re Huffman, 493 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (awarding wife her jewelry); Summer v. Summer, 206 A.D.2d 930, 615 N.Y.S.2d 192 (1994) (husband's photographs are marital property, but they should have been awarded to husband); In re Anderson, 94 Or. App. 774, 766 P.2d 1057 (1990) (trial court should have awarded wife piano and clawfoot piano stool that wife's grandmother gave to wife); see also Williams v. Williams, 613 A.2d 200 (Vt. 1992) (origin of property as family heir loom is relevant factor).

[mainbutter]

There is a legal precedent for that?

I'm 99% sure that in MN, yes, if an engagement breaks off then the receiver of the right is legally bound to return it.

In California, this is not true, engagement rings are considered gifts, and are not required to be returned if an engagement is broken off.

Some states have a fault-law. If the gifter calls off the engagement, they are not entitled to have the ring returned to them, but if the receiver calls off the engagement, then they ARE required to return it.

[nofishfisherman]

Does your ex want to have joint custody of your shot gun, fishing pole, tackle box and truck to? She has just as much claim to those items as she does the dog.

Keep the dog and run far far away.

Like everyone else said she has no legal claim to the dog. As long as you paid for it and cared for it then its your dog and you owe her nothing.

Oh and by the way I think the guys are correct on the ring. Its an unfulfilled contract and the ring goes back to you. Just never give it to another girl EVER! Sell it and buy a second dog.

[bucketmouth64]

Get the ring back, hawk it and use the funds to buy her a dog and tell her you have a dog now. Good riddens. I would feel a bit sorry for the dog not knowing how well she would take care of it since she would have it all the time whereas the other situation she would have it part time...enough to ruin the training.

[401TE]

From:

Benassi v. Back & Neck Pain Clinic, Inc.

629 N.W.2d 475

Minn.App.,2001.

"Engagement ring is a conditional gift given in contemplation of marriage; marriage is an implied condition of the transfer of title to the ring, and the gift does not become absolute until the marriage occurs."

"Donor of engagement ring was entitled to its return after parties decided to abandon their marriage plans, regardless of who was at fault."

You get the ring back and you get the dog (if you paid for the dog and all, or almost all, of the associated costs). The real problem with return of the ring is what to do with it. It's only going to be worth 20-30% of what you paid on the secondary market.

[LightningBG]

There is a legal precedent for that?

[Skeeter21i]

If I didn't know better I'd think you were engaged to my ex-wife that I divorced 14 years ago. You paid and trained the dog so there is no reason an ex-fiance needs to be involved with you and/or the dog after the break up. If she is like this now with your dog think how bad it would've been had you had kids and got divorced. Is it really the dog she wants to be part of or just a way to screw with you? Keep the dog to yourself, forget about the ring and move on.

[bobbymalone]

are you thinking about going along with this dog custody thing because you are trying to play nice and fix the relationship?

[Acemac]

step 1. buy 5 cans of hormel chili

step 2. mix said chili with 2 cups of bacon gresse and a mccdonalds double cheese.

step 3. drop dog off at Ex's

step 4. ?????

Step 5. profit!

obviously kidding so dont flame me for how unhealthy this is for the dog...

[no bait nate]

I am definitely not trying to be a nice guy and fix the relationship. I already have the ring, and it's is going to go towards a new work truck or some tools. I have the dog and am not giving her back, and not going to share her or do any sort of custody agreement. I just didn't know if she actually has any grounds for taking me to court but I am pretty sure she is just full of [PoorWordUsage] and trying to screw with me enough until I cave and let her have the dog. And as the chili and bean trick would give me some short term happiness, I've worked to hard to train my dog for two years not to beg, and she's never gotten one piece of human food, to do that. I enjoy it to much that she can lay next to my two year old niece on the floor while she eats her snacks and doesn't even try to take anything from her. Thanks for all the advice guys.

[CJH]

I just didn't know if she actually has any grounds for taking me to court but I am pretty sure she is just full of [PoorWordUsage] and trying to screw with me enough until I cave and let her have the dog.

She is full of [PoorWordUsage], so call her bluff if she brings it up again!!!!!!!

Good luck, never any easy situation dealing with an ex!

[fivebucks]

I wouldn't think she has any grounds what so ever to get the dog unless she used her money to buy it. If she was an ex-wife then probably but since you weren't married and I assume haven't lived together for 7 years I would call her bluff. I have a friend who is in the divorce process and his soon to be ex wants his GSP 1 week a month. That one could get ugly.