Pets Peeved: The Family Dog Won’t Partition.
The majority opinion in the inappositely named case, Clever v. Clever takes on the question of when and how to litigate domestic pet ownership. This is a hot topic in the family law bar and not a few practitioners and state legislators believe that courts should decide pet custody. For now, that issue remains ripe for further discussion, but the precedential Clever case makes clear that title to the animal governs unless there is a claim for equitable distribution pending.
Darren and Kenna Clever were divorced in Franklin County in November 2020. Neither party raised any economic issues, so their divorce was simple and final. They had two dogs. At the risk of violating canine confidentiality their names are Bentley and Bailey. The opinion tells us that wife moved out of the residence, leaving the two pets behind.
Eighteen months later, now former wife filed a petition under the Divorce Code to have the dogs partitioned (23 Pa.C.S.3507). The court first dismissed this; then granted reconsideration and held a hearing. Having concluded the hearing, the judge afforded the parties some time to make a settlement. When none occurred, the court ordered the dogs sold; treating the matter as if it was a partition of jointly held property. Husband appealed.
To the layperson, this all must seem strange. Who in the world would want their pets “sold?” We have handled cases where pets with championship ribbons and noteworthy bloodlines can be worth a significant amount of money. But those pets typically run on tracks and not around the back yard.
So here is a tutorial. In the days before equitable distribution, property in divorce went to whomever held title to it. Car is in your name; your car. Bank account or pension in your name; yours. But if property was held jointly as in “ Darren Cleaver and Kenna Cleaver as tenants by the entireties or tenants in common” even after a divorce you could file an action to partition the property. This meant it would be sold and each owner would get half after expenses of sale and encumbrances were paid off.
Unlike, cars, houses and bank accounts, household pets really don’t get titled. If your pet has a pedigree you might register it as yours with the American Kennel Club or its feline equivalent. In many places your dog must be licensed and the license often asks who is owner. In our Clever case the wife claims she had put her name on the dog licenses but then she left the animals behind with her husband.
These pets were acquired while the Clevers were married and living together. Wife said she had put the licenses in her name but left the dogs in the possession of her husband because she had to fulfill a commitment to the armed forces. The pets were subject to equitable distribution had either party requested it, but no one did, and the divorce law says that if you don’t deal with rights to property in equitable distribution your only remedy is to partition the property after divorce and see the property sold with an equal division of the proceeds. In this case wife also proposed that the records of the veterinarian would show joint ownership. But vets really don’t get into the business of deciding ownership. They just treat what you present for care. Meanwhile, former husband came to court with records showing that both dogs were registered (with the AKC) and licensed in his name in Franklin County. Accordingly, Ms. Clever did not sustain her burden of demonstrating joint ownership for which a partition action would lie, and her claim was dismissed.
There’s a dissent here and it’s interesting. The parties agreed that the married couple bought the dogs before there was any separation or divorce action. They also agreed that pets are personal property; a fact that is beyond cavil. The dissenting judge says, that’s enough to qualify for partition under 23 Pa.C.S. 3507 and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a partition on those facts. Inherent in the reasoning is that title to the property should not matter and to that end, Judge Megan Sullivan cites three decisions holding that property acquired during marriage is presumed to be jointly held and subject to a partition claim. See Jones v. McGreevy, 270 A.3d 1,14 (Pa.S. 2022).
This may require the intervention of the Supreme Court before it is clear whether Mr. Clever has to “let the dogs out” to be partitioned. We should add our sense that if that if such a sale took place the only two bidders at a sale would be our two litigants. By not ruling immediately after the hearing, the judge was hoping that the bidding war would be concluded before he/she had to rule on the matter.
People acquire pets “jointly” all the time and do so regardless of their marital status. This is a place where a simply agreement deciding what happens if the humans split would save thousands in legal fees. The simple answer is week on/week off but it needs to be in writing and history has taught us that vet bills need to be allocated as well in that writing, lest “Princess” or “Fido” be delivered in a diminished condition so that the “receiving” owner be stuck with the entire vet bill. And if you step up to fancy cats and dogs, such as those you can breed for profit, it might be wise to get an attorney to address issues like how often are they to be bred and who controls that transaction and its income.
Clever v. Clever (Feb 24, 2025) J-S27042-23o – 106281533300852677.pdf