Our society has developed a strong bond with domestic animals and primarily pets. Most every family, at some point, has a dog, cat, hamster, bird or even a delicate goldfish. The blossoming pet market has a dog or a cat in almost every household. The bond that then develops with a pet within a family is often as strong as a bond with a family member. Consequently, in the context of divorce, you might think that there would be some means by which the “custody” of the pet would be addressed. Pets had always been treated as personal property and subject to property division in a divorce. In a divorce case, there is a one-time division of personal property. This one-time division is not subject to further modifications. On the other hand, custody, as in child custody, is on-going and is always subject to actions for modification based on changed circumstances. The award of custody is also based upon a different standard, namely, the best interest of the child. The majority rule in the United States is that pets remain subject to division as personal property. As the court wrote in a Texas appeal “a dog, for all its admirable and unique qualities is not a human being and is not treated in the law as such. A dog is personal property, ownership of which is recognized under the law.” Arrington v. Arrington, 613 S.W. 2d 565,569 (1981) On the other hand, in a Virginia divorce case, the parties testified that the dog was “like a child” to each of them and the court awarded custody of the pet based upon how the husband “adopted” the dog and “bonded” with the dog. Conahan-Baltzelle v. Baltzelle, 2004 WL 1959486. Thus, you see the evolution of the courts moving closer to a best interest standard, like a child custody case. While no clear consensus has emerged and while there is no Massachusetts case directly on point allowing for parties to seek “custody” of a pet, the courts are beginning to move in that direction. What you should know is that as a party to a divorce, the parties have enormous control over the result. Consequently, it is highly likely that a court will still approve a divorce agreement that would have a shared custodial arrangement concerning a pet. The parties have it within their ability to specify a schedule, the responsibility for veterinarian and grooming expenses, as well as any other needs of the pet. I have had the experience of negotiating resolutions of disputes between parties concerning their beloved family pet. This is a much better way to handle the situational. Certainly, I wouldn’t advise you to hire a lawyer for your pet. Lawless and Lawless In-Depth Knowledge and Experience

The magnet on my refrigerator says “Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.” It is hard to believe, but the United States Supreme Court actually took up the question of whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893). In 1886, an importer in New York City had to pay a customs tax for having imported a vegetable. At that time, vegetables were taxed and fruits were exempt. The collector of import taxes in New York insisted upon the payment of the tax and the importer disputed the ruling leading to the case heard before the United States Supreme Court. As the refrigerator magnet references, botanically, tomatoes are a fruit because they form a flower and contain seeds. One would think that with science on your side, it was an open and shut case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Think twice. While the U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizes the botanical definition, the court stretched logic and adopted the common sense application as to certain foods and ruled that despite the botanical definition, tomatoes are a vegetable at the dinner table and, therefore, a vegetable for taxation purposes. The court stated ‘tomatoes are a vegetable rather than a fruit in the common and popular acceptance of the words’. To one more skeptical, you could simply conclude there is no surprise that the court supported the tax collector. No rotten tomatoes there!!! You, as a layman, may feel that something is so clear and straightforward, and yet, the result at the end of the day is not what seemed so apparent. That is what good lawyering is all about. Courts are made up of humans and, hence, a great deal of success in court is dependent upon persuasion. The lawyer’s challenge is taking a set of facts to court and using skill and the law to persuade a judge of the client’s position. It is incumbent upon you, as the client, to bring your case to a qualified lawyer for the assessment of whether you have a viable case or not. I pride myself on spending time with my client to fully assess a potential case. I’m with the refrigerator magnet, there will be no tomatoes on my fruit salad. Lawless and Lawless In-Depth Knowledge and Experience