Can a Florida Judge Order Joint Custody for a Pet?

It goes without saying that most Florida residents treat their pets as family members. Indeed, many people even view their cat, dog, bird, or other animal as the functional equivalent of a child. But what does this mean when the “parents” of a pet decide to get a divorce? Can the court award custody and visitation rights the same as with a human child?

Appeals Court: Dog Is “Personal Property,” Not a Child

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals recently confronted this issue. In Crossen v. Feeley, a husband and wife divorced after just 19 months of marriage. The main contested issue was the distribution of a condominium penthouse valued at around $900,000. Six months before the marriage, the wife purchased the penthouse in cash using funds gifted from her parents.

The trial court nevertheless refused the wife’s request for an unequal distribution of the penthouse to herself. The judge held that since the wife failed to make any contribution to the purchase price, there was no basis for an unequal distribution. The Fourth District, however, said the trial judge failed to consider all of the statutory factors required by Florida law in determining equitable distribution. Notably, the judge ignored the fact the penthouse “entered the marriage as the wife’s non-marital property.” The appeals court therefore directed the trial judge to reconsider this issue.

The Fourth District also held the trial judge erred in determining the now former husband and former wife would remain “equal owners” of their dog Tucker. The parties purchased Tucker, a golden doodle, about eight months prior to the initiation of divorce proceedings. They later stipulated to the trial court that they “agreed to share custody” of Tucker following their separation. The judge obliged and ordered equal ownership as part of the final divorce judgment.

The issue here, the Fourth District explained, was that from a legal standpoint, a pet is considered personal property. This means the trial court needed to value and make an equitable distribution of the dog like it would any other property. The appellate court observed:

We note that much of the testimony we have encountered on dog custody resembles evidence on child custody; but no authority allows a trial court to grant joint custody of a pet, which the trial court effectively did in this case by making the parties equal owners of the dog.

Here, the animal had an established value–the parties purchased Tucker for $2,500–so the trial court’s role was to “equitably distribute Tucker to one party or the other.” This would be yet another task for the trial judge on remand.

Contact a Port St. Lucie Equitable Distribution/Division of Assets Attorney

Splitting up personal property, especially “property” that you consider a family member, is often the most emotionally taxing aspect of a divorce. In order to protect your interests during this trying time, it is in your best interests to work with an experienced Port St. Lucie equitable distribution and division of assets lawyer. Contact Baginski Brandt & Brandt today at 772-466-0707 to schedule a confidential consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13341279576093357608