Travis v. Murray
977 N.Y.S.2d 621, 42 Misc. 3d 447 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a divorce proceeding, the possession of a companion animal should be determined not by a strict property analysis or a 'best interests of the animal' standard, but by a 'best for all concerned' standard that considers where the animal will live, prosper, love, and be loved.
Facts:
- Shannon Louise Travis and Trisha Bridget Murray lived together in Manhattan before marrying on October 12, 2012.
- On February 6, 2011, while the parties were living together, Travis purchased a 10-week-old miniature dachshund puppy named Joey from a pet store.
- Travis claims she bought Joey with her own funds, making him her separate property.
- Murray contends that Travis gave Joey to her as a gift to console her for having to give away her cat at Travis's insistence.
- Both parties assert they were the primary caregiver for Joey during their relationship.
- On June 11, 2013, while Travis was on a business trip, Murray moved out of the marital apartment.
- Murray took Joey with her when she left and initially told Travis the dog was lost.
- Murray later revealed that Joey was living with her mother in Freeport, Maine.
Procedural Posture:
- Shannon Louise Travis commenced a divorce action against Trisha Bridget Murray on July 11, 2013, in the Supreme Court of New York County, a trial-level court.
- Travis subsequently filed a motion within the divorce proceeding seeking an order for Murray to return their dog, Joey, and for Travis to be awarded 'sole residential custody' of him.
- The trial court is now ruling on Travis's motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a divorce proceeding, is the determination of possession of a pet dog governed by a strict property analysis, or should the court apply a standard that considers the animal's well-being without engaging in a full child custody analysis?
Opinions:
Majority - Matthew F. Cooper, J.
No. A court should not use a strict property analysis or a full child custody 'best interests' analysis to determine possession of a pet. The proper approach is to treat the pet as a special category of property and apply a 'best for all concerned' standard. While New York law has traditionally viewed animals as chattel, case law has evolved to recognize their special status, occupying a place 'somewhere in between a person and a piece of personal property.' A full 'best interests of the animal' standard, analogous to child custody, is unworkable and an inappropriate use of judicial resources, as a court cannot truly ascertain a dog's feelings or happiness. Instead, guided by the precedent in Raymond v. Lachmann, the court will hold a hearing to determine which party can provide the better home where the dog is more likely to 'live, prosper, love and be loved.' This allows consideration of factors like primary caregiving without opening the door to complex and protracted custody litigation.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal status of pets in New York matrimonial law as being more than mere property, but less than children. It formally rejects both the cold, traditional chattel analysis and the unworkable 'best interests' standard some litigants have advocated for. By adopting the 'best for all concerned' standard from Raymond v. Lachmann, the court creates a practical and humane framework for resolving pet disputes in divorce, providing clear guidance for lower courts. The decision balances the deep emotional connection people have with their pets against the need for judicial economy, ensuring these disputes are given meaningful consideration without overwhelming the court system.
