Richard S. Diamond Family Law Blog on Lawyers.com

Based on a recent NJ Court decision, who gets the family pet in a break up setting, just got more complicated.

Courts in New Jersey traditionally viewed pets like chairs and personalty and were reluctant, if not down right opposed, to making pet ownership determinations in a break up setting. In fact, many if not most judges considered court action concerning family pets to be frivolous and a waste of precious judicial resources.  The reason for this is that New Jersey courts traditionally viewed pets as "personal property" and much to the disappointment of animal right’s campaigners, had not adopted a “best interests of the pet” standard when it came to deciding where and with whom the family pet should live after the parties separated.

However, in the recent published appellate decision in Houseman v. Dare a family judge in Gloucester county awarded $1500 compensation for a pedigree dog that one party kept in violation of an oral agreement as to who would get the pet upon separation.  The trial court held that monetary damages i.e. the intrinsic value of the dog should be paid when the dog was not handed over.  On appeal, the higher court disagreed with the trial courts ruling and held that "specific performance" is also available as a remedy for the breach of their oral
agreement as to possession of the dog instead of money.

The Court reasoned that to allow otherwise, would reward the breaching party who kept the dog in violation of the parties’ agreement. The appellate opinion by Judge Grall, likened a pet to a family heirloom, where money cannot replace the sentimental value attached to it.  That reasoning also signaled a dramatic change in how the family court should view the family pet.  The opinion went on to state,

“There is no reason for a court of equity to be more wary in resolving competing claims for possession of a pet based on one party's sincere affection for and attachment to it than in resolving competing claims based on one party's sincere sentiment for an inanimate object based upon a relationship with the donor.”

Translated, what the opinion in Houseman means in practice, is that family courts in New Jersey should no longer avoid ruling on who gets the family pet when the parties separate since the family pet has now been elevated to the same stature and respect as family heirlooms and more valuable than the kitchen chairs.  This should come as good news to all pet owners in New Jersey.

This post was previously published on my New Jersey Divorce Law Blog. For a consultation on any New Jersey family law matter please contact me at 973 379 9292. Further information on the law firm of Diamond & Diamond, P.A. can be found on our web-site.