Runyon & Runyon
  • "This little note is to say thanks for all you have done for me. You worked so hard to prove that we told the truth. However it turns out, I know you did your best."
  • "Thank you and the Runyon team for everything that you all have done for my son. I truly appreciate it."
  • "Thank you Mrs. Browning for all of your help, and if you could pass my thanks on to Ray. Your team helped more than you know. If you ever need to reach me for anything further ill be here.Thank you again."
  • " I can’t put into words how grateful I am for all you have done for me. Thank you for listening and understanding what I was going through...”
  • " Thank you for taking care of everything for me in a professional manner. The staff is awesome also!”
  • " I wanted to thank you for your support. You are the best attorney in Clarksville. I could not have done it without you”
  • " Should I need legal service again you will be my only one to call. Thank you so much”
  • " Ray took time out of his busy schedule to fit us in at a time of crisis on several occasions”
Read More
Contact Us For An Appointment
toll free 800-568-1534
local 931-305-0061

Finding Buddy: Courts puzzle over pet custody in divorce p2

We are picking up our discussion from our last post about divorce and pet custody. The question for the courts is whether pets are property or something more than property. In the case we are talking about, the wife argued that the pet was "special property," and she had precedent to support her argument -- sort of.

The story is out of Vermont, not Tennessee, so the decision is not binding on any Tennessee cases. If the Tennessee Supreme Court comes across a similar case, though, and has no precedent from this state, it may look to other states' decisions for guidance. Even a case from a state as far away as Vermont could influence state law here.

Back to the case: The couple had no children, but they had a dog. When they separated in anticipation of their divorce, they worked out a shared custody arrangement for the dog. When it came time for the final decree, though, the husband did not want that to continue. He wanted sole custody.

State law provides guidelines for child custody but not pet custody; still, the trial court apparently borrowed from the child custody criteria to help with the decision. The judge said her decision would turn on which spouse had been the "more active" caregiver -- for the dog -- while the couple was married. Regardless, she added, if the two agreed to a shared visitation arrangement, the family court would not enforce it -- yes, "even if the parties agreed to it."

The judge granted custody to the husband, basing her decision in part on her perception that the husband treated the dog "like a dog," while the wife treated the dog "like a child." The husband's "balanced attitude" toward the dog would serve the dog better. The wife appealed.

We will discuss that appeal, and wrap this up, in our next post.

Source: Seven Days, "Pet Custody Can Dog Vermont Divorces," Ken Picard, June 25, 2014

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

We Have Answers

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy