Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pets & Family Law

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Ya but if B paid the bill upfront, good luck getting the money from A if they didnt want to pay it.

    Comment


    • #17
      The pets belong to Person A. They are personal property. Should Person A take this to court they would win and win handily. Should Person A call the police, the police will attend Person B's house and cause the pets to be returned.

      This is no different than having someone care for your car and notices the check engine light comes on. Person B does not own the car simply because they took it to the mechanic for a tune up.

      Person B may have solid reason to request that Person A reimburse them for their expenses incurred in relation to the dogs. But Person A is likely within their rights to tell them to get bent, causing Person B to have to go to small claims court to recuperate their expenses.

      There is also no guarantee Person B would win in small claims court. The weren't authorized to take the animals to the Vet. The owner didn't consent to incurring the bills. And unless there was need for immediate care, the trip to the vet could've waited until the owner returned at which time Person B could've suggested that Person A take them to the vet and why.

      Person B is completely in the wrong. If they tried this with me and my dog, the cops would be banging at their door within minutes of their refusing to return her.

      Comment


      • #18
        Obviously not part of family law, but can be part of a separation agreement. An acquaintance of mine has split ownership of a dog. She gets the dog every other week and they split the vet bills and both attend all vet visit. She has custody of her children and I swear she was more worried a out the dog then the children or rather he fought for the dog and agreed to her offer for the children!

        In a breakup noone thinks rationally!

        Comment


        • #19
          Kind of sad that it is easier to get pets/property returned to you, than it is to get children returned.

          Comment


          • #20
            I'm with HammerDad, Person B is in the wrong and needs to return the dogs.

            My pups are like my children, no kidding I would go to court over them and almost had to.
            Me too, Janibel! And in our household, it is fairly obvious to all on a daily basis that the dogs believe they are 100% mine as well (although one was picked by the kidlet and was to be her dog. Ha! I won't make that mistake again)
            Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

            Comment


            • #21
              Person A did call the cops and the cops were of no use to this Person. They basically said that because the dogs were jointly owned before separation there is little they can do about it. Person B is running with that, as the cops requested they return the dogs to stop the drama but stated there was little that could be done. Person A admits they left the house with the dogs and without permission of Person B.

              Comment


              • #22
                Small claims court, perhaps?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Straittohell View Post
                  Small claims court, perhaps?
                  Yes people have gone to small claims court over ownership of their pets. The best thing to do would be for A to send a registered letter (all official sounding to get B's attention) stating that if the animals are not returned by such and such date - see you in court !!!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                    All the sudden after a week, Person A has asked for the dogs back but Person B is refusing because the dogs are now on medication and have to have a follow up with the vet next week due to the condition of the one.
                    The big question is, does Person B plan to return the animals after their vet checkup? If they are, it is just a matter of waiting. Which, while unpleasant, isn't the end of the world.

                    Person B should return the pets promptly when requested though. There is no reason why they should hold onto property (yes, pets are property) that was otherwise determined to be another persons. While the animals were previously owned by both individuals, it was commonly accepted that they now belong to Person A.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Person A is at a loss as to what to do... the police were of no help and told Person A to take Person B to court. Person A can't afford court and just wants the dogs back.

                      It's funny how when there are no children to fight over (the children was all adults) that it comes down to something. In this case the dogs, but whether it kids, dogs, cars, tools, etc., people will always find something to fight and argue about.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                        Person A is at a loss as to what to do... the police were of no help and told Person A to take Person B to court. Person A can't afford court and just wants the dogs back.

                        It's funny how when there are no children to fight over (the children was all adults) that it comes down to something. In this case the dogs, but whether it kids, dogs, cars, tools, etc., people will always find something to fight and argue about.
                        why did person A wait for 5 days to ask for the animals back? It seems the original agreement was for maybe a weekend? I am taking it that Party A knew that Party B had to work etc?

                        Why didn't person A respond to the texts and phone calls that person B made to them in regards to the dogs?

                        Neither party acting in good faith in this whole situation.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          According to Person A the deal was for a few days because they wanted to have an opportunity to go out and not have the responsibility of the dogs. Person A did not respond to the texts or calls, as according to them their cell phone died. Whether that is the truth or not who knows.

                          Person A is the one I know through a mutual friend. She can be a heavy party person at times and I can only assume that with the separation still being pretty recent she was letting lose so to say. I assume she knew her ex had to work, he has worked at the same place for over 10 years.

                          Do I think Person B should give back the dogs? Yes in a way, but I also don't think Person A should have not kept her ex up to speed as to her plans and knowing her ex, he wouldn't leave the dogs not knowing when she would be home. Both are very spiteful towards each other. She left without a word to him, in fact he filed a missing persons report because she seemed to fall off the face of the earth, it took over a week for the police to track her down and at that time she was hours away at a family members house.

                          I type all this while I sit here with three dogs by my side and one at my feet... I could not imagine going through this, or leaving my dogs for days at a time and not checking up on them.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            hmm I wonder if A is really ready for the commitment of looking after a furbaby?? If she just took the animals because she knew it would piss B off?

                            I have left animals in the care of other people before but always with a set end date and with calls checking up.

                            I have serious doubts about the whole cell phone dying. Unless she was on an island with no electricity then there is no reason she couldn't charge her phone. Lost the charger, then borrow one or buy one.

                            It was a game IMHO

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Here's another article on how to handle family pets during divorce - ''sometimes the court actually looks towards “the best interests of the pet”, meaning which “parent” will have a better yard, be able to pay for veterinary care or tends to go away on vacation less often. In other situations, the court might actually establish visitation arrangements for the pet.'' Crazy world we live in, no?
                              Divorce and Pets – Another Reason Prenuptial Agreements Make Sense | Family Law and Divorce Blog

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Person B knows that they are really Person A's pets. Person B was doing a favour for animals they previously cared for. Yes, Person A is irresponsible. But they are still the person who was understood to be the owner of the pets.

                                Person B should get over being butt hurt about being left hung out to dry with the pets for a couple extra days. They can offer to buy them, but if Person A says no, then they should give them back and stop creating issues where there should be none.

                                If Person B wants a pet, the local shelter is looking for good homes for needy animals.

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X