New Jersey Court Rules On Pet Custody
Doreen Houseman and Eric Dane lived together for over 13 years. They bought a house, became engaged and then purchased a pug named Dexter.
Then like many couples do, they split.
Their oral agreement was that Dexter would go with Doreen when she left the residence.
After one occasion when Eric was taking care of the pug, he refused to return the dog to Doreen.
When she sued for specific performance*, the lower court denied her claim and instead, awarded her $1,500.00 or the original purchase price of the pug.
On appeal, the New Jersey court reversed the lower ruling and wrote that Doreen would have the right to pursue specific performance for the return of her dog.
In reaching its decision, the Court relied on case law that recognizes that animals have a subjective value to their owners. This value is more than the purchase price or replacement cost.
However, that same Court declined to adopt a best-interests-of-the-pet standard as urged by The Animal Legal Defense Fund in the case.
I have seen cases where a guardian has been appointed for animals and custody cases involving dissolutions where pets are involved, in fact, I wrote about one custody case in North Carolina,just last month.
And although I am aware of at leaset one case involving a pet dispute and a writ of replevin, I believe that this is one of the few cases where specific performance is involved.
*Specific performance is a specialized remedy used by courts when no other remedy (such as money) will adequately compensate the other party. If a legal remedy will put the injured party in the position he or she would have enjoyed had the contract been fully performed, then the court will use that option instead. The most common reason courts grant specific performance is that the subject of the contract is unique. When a contract is for the sale of a unique property, mere money damages will not remedy the purchaser's situation.
http://www.pettrustlawblog.com/admin/trackback/118258
This is the first case of its kind in New Jersey and very progressive in its ruling that specific performance is an appropriate remedy. This is contrasted with states like Florida and Pennsylvania, where courts declined to enforce visitation agreements over animals, finding that they are personal property.
It is heartening that the New Jersey court has recognized what is already known by anyone with a beloved companion animal - they are members of our families, not pieces of furniture.
Thank you to the ALDF and LIDA for their thoughtful arguments, and for their work in advancing animal rights.
Respectfully,
Gina A. Calogero, Esq.
Attorney for the plaintiff Doreen Houseman