|
|
|
FAMILY PETS AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION
© 1995 National Legal Research Group, Inc.
FLORIDA: Bennett v. Bennett, ___ So. 2d ___, 20 Fla. L. Weekly D225 (Fla. DCA 1994).
Family pets are personal property to be dealt with through the equitable distribution process, rather than through orders for custody and visitation.
The parties stipulated to all issues in the final judgment of dissolution except which party would receive possession of their dog, "Roddy." After a hearing, the trial court found that the husband should be awarded possession of the dog and that the wife should have the dog for visitation every other weekend and every other Christmas.
An avalanche of motions followed that decision. The husband filed a motion for rehearing alleging that the dog was a premarital asset; he also filed a motion for relief for judgment and an amended motion for rehearing. The wife replied and filed a motion for contempt and a motion to strike the husband's amended motion for rehearing. The trial court held a hearing on the motions, and the wife filed a motion requesting a change of custody or a change of visitation. The trial court denied the husband's motion for rehearing and granted the wife's motion to change visitation.
The Florida appeals court said this procedural history demonstrated the morass in which a trial court may find itself by extending the right of visitation to personal property. Based on the history of the case, there was every reason to believe that there would be continued squabbling between the parties concerning the dog. The procedural wrangling showed the folly of awarding custody and visitation for pets, according to the court.
The court held, therefore, that the trial court lacked authority to order visitation with the dog, and that the dog should instead be dealt with through the equitable distribution process. It reversed and remanded for the trial court to award the animal pursuant to the dictates of the equitable distribution statute. While a dog may be considered by many to be a member of the family, Florida law considers animals to be personal property, the court observed. There is no authority which provides for a trial court to grant custody or visitation pertaining to personal property, the court added.
It would be unwise to give family pets special status within dissolution proceedings, the court said. Determinations about custody and visitation lead to continuing enforcement and supervision problems, the court noted. "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." 20 Fla. L. Weekly at D225.
Other States. As the court recognized, several other states have accorded special treatment to family pets in marriage dissolution proceedings. See, e.g., Arrington v. Arrington , 613 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981) (trial court in divorce action did not err by making wife managing conservator of dog, even though dogs are personal property and role of managing conservator was created for benefit of human children rather than canines).
Go to: Pets Category
Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| Featured Services | |
|
| The Research Center: (Divorce Cases of Interest) | Research Home | ||||
Find Case Law, Case Analysis, and Divorce Information...
| |||||
Copyright© 1996-2009. All rights reserved by Divorce Source, Inc.
Comments & Suggestions? or Recommend This Page to a Friend!