Couple Spends $40K On Dog Custody

Lawyer Amy Feldman weighs in on a New Jersey case that would treat pets like children in divorce cases.

The case: Eric Dare and Doreen Houseman’s battle over Dexter the pug.

The Salem, N.J. couple have been to court several times over who gets Dexter and at what cost.

In September, a judge will rule on the case.

Previously, a Superior Court Judge determined that the Dexter is joint property and a suitable arrangement must now be determined.

There are three options: one “parent” could get full custody or a joint visitation agreement can be decided.

Dare and Houseman spent 13 years together but never married, and broke up in 2006.

In March, an another court decided pets have a special value beyond being basic property.

Here is what our expert, Amy Feldman, thinks about the case.

1. What is the law on who gets custody of a pet in a divorce?

Answer: The law until now has always been that there is no custody of pets--there was only possession. The courts have always found that a dog or a cat is not a child, but rather a piece of property like a table or a lamp that would be divided in divorce. So one ex spouse would get the dog; the other would get the value of the dog. If you were dealing with a $1500 purebred pug, for example, one would get $1500, the other get to keep the pug.

2. Is that because the Courts until now haven't been animal lovers?

Answer: I think it's because the courts are really swamped with child custody and other types of cases. To add another whole layer to the dissolution of a marriage could really add years of fighting.

3. And now what's changed?

Answer: The Appeals Court in New Jersey made a ruling that could change the animals-as-property notion. It said that while some property like tables could be divided, there are actually other classes of property like valuable art or family heirlooms that can have more intrinsic value than the dollar figure would suggest--and that animals might fall into that category. So while it stopped short of saying that a court should consider what's in the best interest of the animal (like you would consider the best interests of the child in a custody case) it did send the case back to the trial court to get briefs from the attorneys involved and asked them to come up with ideas for who should get the pug.

4. What do you think will be the outcome of the case?

Answer: I think that given that the couple has already spent more than $40,000 litigating this, it seems improbable that they could come up with a solution--but the bigger issue is the way this affects pets in a divorce proceeding. I think that this case may set a precedent for courts to look past how much a pet cost, and instead consider the subjective value to the ex-spouses when making a determination. I don't think the courts will ever go so far as to determine what's in the best interest of the pet or take the dog back into chambers to have a heart-to-heart over which master he'd prefer to live with.