A strange topic until you examine the law and the data. Americans spend about $140 billion dollars a year supporting pets. Of our 90 million households 66% have a pet. More than 33% have more than one. Average cost for Rover is about $950 a year. Top Cat is closer to $650. Needless to say, every pet owner has a “tail” about a vet or other bill for care that seemed human in scale.
We also know that whether married or not, people who acquire pets together don’t always stay that way. And, therein lies the rub. As human relationships crumble people tend to draw closer to their pets for comfort. When families actually separate who gets the pets and on what terms is a major source of contention.
Here, the law is surprisingly behind the times. While we “license” domestic animals we don’t really record who has title. You might have taken Rover for his license but if I have a check payable to the puppy farm, I probably have “ownership.” If the pet was acquired during marriage, it is “marital property” and subject to division in divorce no matter who paid or registered. But courts are not enthusiastic about canine or feline custody cases assessing the best interests of the animals or their keepers. Many of those who decide these cases will tell lawyers and clients to “Go make a deal or the court will decide and one party won’t be happy.”
You can resolve all of this by agreement. Perhaps week/on week off sharing works. But that should be in writing. But, then the pet shows up after a week with a distinct limp or flea-ridden. Who pays the vet and who decides whether a serious illness merits expensive treatment or euthanasia. Our ancestors would have found this debate laughable. A sick pet was “put down.” A stray pet was often shot as a threat to crops or animals sold for cash. Today 97% of those polled regard their domestic animals as “family.”
So, what would a Petnuptial say? How about if there is a split of the owners (who would acknowledge ownership is joint with survivorship rights) the beast does week on/off with transportation equally divided if the new residence isn’t more than 15 miles from the last common residence. How about veterinary and similar maintenance appointments will be stored on a common website like “Our Family Wizard” and each party will keep it updated with “need to know” events (e.g., cat got sick)? Costs of these events are shared equally or in some agreed proportion. Where there are allegations that one party is not providing proper care or other reasonable disagreements, a neutral party (probably a lawyer) would set up a teleconference to hear and decide an equitable and reasonable solution. If that neutral found the dispute or associated conduct unreasonable he or she could issue an arbitration award for counsel fees or other compensation.
For otherwise happy couples who just want to add a pet to the “family” this kind of agreement seems excessive. If only they could spend 10 minutes with lawyers and judges who have endured questioning about whether a dog is fed fresh or dried food, they might understand. If they didn’t, I would let them see the legal fees associated with a half-day devoted to animal welfare trials.
The greatest frustration associated with a failed relationship is the sense of powerlessness. That feeling is magnified when loved ones (including quadrupeds) are caught in the cross-fire. Agreements setting forth a procedure to be heard and have the problem addressed can be a sound investment in a world where today’s law equates your favorite pet with the teapot you inherited from great grandmother. Your pet would tell you he/she deserves better.
Recent Comments