Houseman v. Dare
966 A.2d 24 (2009)
Rule of Law:
Specific performance is an appropriate remedy for breach of an agreement regarding the ownership of a pet because pets have a special subjective value to their owners that cannot be compensated by money damages.
Facts:
- Doreen Houseman and Eric Dare were in a relationship for thirteen years and became engaged to be married.
- In 1999, they purchased a residence together as joint tenants.
- In 2003, they purchased a pedigree dog for $1500, which they jointly registered with the American Kennel Club.
- In May 2006, Dare ended the engagement and their relationship.
- Houseman alleged that they made an oral agreement that she would receive ownership of the dog upon their separation.
- When Houseman moved out of the shared residence in July 2006, she took the dog with her.
- For several months following the separation, Houseman allowed Dare to take the dog for visits, after which he would return the pet to her.
- In late February 2007, Houseman left the dog with Dare while she went on vacation, and Dare subsequently refused to return the dog.
Procedural Posture:
- Doreen Houseman filed a complaint against Eric Dare in the Family Part of the Superior Court of New Jersey (a trial court).
- Houseman sought specific performance of an oral agreement granting her ownership of their jointly owned dog.
- The trial court made a pretrial ruling that specific performance was not an available remedy for a pet because pets are personal property lacking unique value.
- After a trial, the court found Houseman's testimony credible but, based on its pretrial ruling and Dare's physical possession of the dog, awarded possession to Dare.
- The trial court ordered Dare to pay Houseman $1500, the stipulated market value of the dog.
- Houseman (Plaintiff-Appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is specific performance an available remedy for breach of an oral agreement regarding the ownership and possession of a pet?
Opinions:
Majority - Grall, J.A.D.
Yes. Specific performance is an available remedy for breach of an oral agreement regarding the ownership and possession of a pet. The court held that pets have a special subjective value, similar to heirlooms or works of art, which cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages. The remedy of specific performance is appropriate when money damages are insufficient to protect the injured party's expectation interest, particularly for property that induces a strong sentimental attachment. The court reasoned that there is no basis to be more wary in resolving competing claims for a pet based on sincere affection than for an inanimate object with sentimental value. Therefore, the trial court erred in ruling as a matter of law that specific performance was unavailable simply because a pet is legally considered personal property.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for elevating the legal status of pets in property disputes beyond mere chattel with a market value. It explicitly recognizes the 'special subjective value' and sentimental attachment owners have for their pets, analogizing them to unique items like heirlooms for which equitable remedies are appropriate. The case establishes that specific performance is a viable remedy in pet ownership disputes, particularly for unmarried cohabitants, thereby allowing courts to enforce agreements to return a pet rather than just awarding its monetary value. This shifts the focus from a pet's replacement cost to the unique, personal relationship between the animal and its owner, impacting how future pet 'custody' battles are litigated.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Houseman v. Dare (2009)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"