Travis v. Murray

Supreme Court of New York, New York County · Family Law

Family Lawpet possession disputesdivorcedogpetdivorcepossessionproperty

Facts

The parties married in October 2012 after already living together in the same Manhattan apartment. Plaintiff bought Joey, a miniature dachshund, from a pet store in February 2011 before the marriage. In June 2013, while plaintiff was away on a business trip, defendant moved out of the apartment and took Joey with her; she later revealed that Joey was living with her mother in Maine. Plaintiff claimed Joey was her property because she purchased him before marriage and said she was his primary caregiver, while defendant claimed Joey had been gifted to her and argued that Joey's interests were better served away from plaintiff.

Issue

When divorcing spouses dispute possession of a dog, should the court decide the matter by strict property principles, by a child-custody-style best-interests analysis, or by some other standard? If another standard applies, what procedure and form of relief are appropriate?

Rule

In a divorce dispute over a household pet, a court should not resolve possession solely by traditional property ownership concepts, nor should it conduct a child-custody-style best-interests analysis. The proper standard is what is 'best for all concerned,' under which the court may consider factors such as the parties' past care of the dog, their relationship with it, and which placement gives the animal the better chance of living, prospering, loving, and being loved; the ultimate award should be sole possession, not joint custody or visitation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a divorce in Brooklyn, Nina Patel and Lauren Chase both seek possession of their golden retriever, Maple. Nina bought Maple before the marriage, but Lauren handled most of the daily walks and veterinary appointments after the wedding.

Which standard should the court apply to determine who gets Maple?

Explanation. The majority held that in a divorce dispute over a household pet, the court should reject both a strict property-only approach and a child-custody best-interests test. Instead, it should determine possession under the Raymond standard of what is 'best for all concerned,' considering factors such as ownership history, past care, and the pet's living situation. (Derived from Travis v. Murray (n.d.).)