Desanctis v. Pritchard
2002 Pa. Super. 221, 2002 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1513, 803 A. 2d 230 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Pennsylvania law, dogs are classified as personal property. Therefore, legal concepts such as child custody and visitation are not applicable to pets, and any agreement purporting to establish such rights is unenforceable.
Facts:
- Appellant and Appellee were married in 1991.
- During the marriage, Appellee purchased a dog named Barney from the SPCA.
- In August 2000, as part of their divorce proceedings, the parties signed an agreement.
- The agreement specified that Barney was Appellee’s property and that she would have 'full custody,' but also included a provision for Appellant to visit the dog.
- The parties divorced in October 2000.
- Subsequently, Appellee moved to a different county and ceased making Barney available for Appellant's visits.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant filed a Complaint in Equity in the trial court seeking, among other things, to mandate 'shared custody' of a dog named Barney.
- Appellee filed preliminary objections to Appellant's Complaint.
- The trial court sustained Appellee’s preliminary objections and dismissed Appellant’s Complaint.
- Appellant appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court have the legal authority to enforce an agreement that grants visitation or shared custody rights for personal property, such as a dog, following a divorce?
Opinions:
Majority - Montemuro, J.
No. A court cannot enforce an agreement granting custodial visitation with personal property. Pennsylvania law unequivocally considers dogs to be personal property. The Appellant's request to enforce 'shared custody' and 'visitation' for Barney is legally analogous to seeking a visitation schedule for an inanimate object like a table or a lamp, a result not contemplated by statute. The agreement explicitly awarded the dog to the Appellee as her property. Under Pennsylvania divorce statutes (§§ 3503-3504), upon divorce, parties have complete freedom of disposition over their separate personal property. Therefore, any term in the agreement attempting to create ongoing custodial rights over property is void and unenforceable.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal status of pets as personal property in domestic relations law, explicitly rejecting the application of child custody principles to animals. It establishes a clear precedent that courts will not entertain suits to enforce 'pet custody' or 'visitation' agreements, regardless of the emotional attachment involved. The ruling forces parties in a divorce to treat pets as any other asset to be distributed, precluding ongoing court intervention for visitation schedules. This impacts future divorce agreements by clarifying that while parties can agree on who owns a pet, they cannot create legally enforceable, ongoing visitation rights through the court system.
